Part 2: What Naturals are Truly Capable Of

Training
261

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Fact naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period
Fact only so many calories are needed for this
Fact eating more adds only bF that will need to be lost unless BF is of no concern

Anything others want to add to this list?[/quote]

Add to it?

Statement: Fact naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period

Truth: All humans have variable rates at which they synthesize muscle and this is an adaptive ability as well. Increased training can increase protein anabolism…meaning synthesis of muscle tissue is not static but changes in rate due to many variables…like age, stress, overall conditioning, sleep, etc…

Statement:Fact only so many calories are needed for this

Truth: The amount of calories needed for this changes as the needs of the body change. It can not be predicted but you can try to feed it when it is most ready to grow.

Statement: Fact eating more adds only bF that will need to be lost unless BF is of no concern

Truth: Combined with intense training, adding muscular body weight even if fat is added could contribute to increased leverage which could increase the weight used for exercises…which alone could lead to more muscle growth. Joint lubrication and stability is also a factor as many notice a decrease in joint integrity with extremely lean body comps.

Hormonal fluctuations associated with age may also allow more muscle to be built from more intake. This is why it is often discussed that even obese people do NOT just gain body fat…they gain fat and muscle tissue…even if that muscle gain is minimal…it comes without training.[/quote]

Plz note I did not finite numbers there just because of this so…not sure what your argument is[/quote]
I don’t normally jump into these types of threads and don’t always agree with what X has to say, but I thought this post counteracting what Ryan stated as fact to be pretty well put. I think things would have went in a different direction had you stated it like this:

IMO: naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period
IMO: only so many calories are needed for this
IMO: eating more adds only bF that will need to be lost unless BF is of no concern

262

It is correct to understand that certain variables can have an effect on how much can be synthesized at a certain point (age, stress, experience levels, etc), BUT even within those specific guidelines (whatever they may be), at any given time, you still can’t force feed growth. Your nutrient NEEDS may indeed be more at a given time than at others, and you can certainly do your best to address them, but there will still be a finite point within a chosen period.

S

263

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It is correct to understand that certain variables can have an effect on how much can be synthesized at a certain point (age, stress, experience levels, etc), BUT even within those specific guidelines (whatever they may be), at any given time, you still can’t force feed growth. Your nutrient NEEDS may indeed be more at a given time than at others, and you can certainly do your best to address them, but there will still be a finite point within a chosen period.

S[/quote]

Thank god stu got my over arching point. Makes feel slightly better

264

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It is correct to understand that certain variables can have an effect on how much can be synthesized at a certain point (age, stress, experience levels, etc), BUT even within those specific guidelines (whatever they may be), at any given time, you still can’t force feed growth. Your nutrient NEEDS may indeed be more at a given time than at others, and you can certainly do your best to address them, but there will still be a finite point within a chosen period.

S[/quote]

Thank god stu got my over arching point. Makes feel slightly better [/quote]
This is more of a consensus between the ‘sides’ than is probably realised

265

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I post on this site in my spare time.[/quote]

266

[quote]Vagina Whisperer wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I post on this site in my spare time.[/quote]
[/quote]
Does he not? I doubt anyone is paying him to post here. If we define spare time as time with which he is not obligated to do anything else in particular, then by definition his time spent posting here must be his spare time.

267

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It is correct to understand that certain variables can have an effect on how much can be synthesized at a certain point (age, stress, experience levels, etc), BUT even within those specific guidelines (whatever they may be), at any given time, you still can’t force feed growth. Your nutrient NEEDS may indeed be more at a given time than at others, and you can certainly do your best to address them, but there will still be a finite point within a chosen period.

S[/quote]

Thank god stu got my over arching point. Makes feel slightly better [/quote]
This is more of a consensus between the ‘sides’ than is probably realised[/quote]

Right so the bbing pro picks sides? Come on man

268

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It is correct to understand that certain variables can have an effect on how much can be synthesized at a certain point (age, stress, experience levels, etc), BUT even within those specific guidelines (whatever they may be), at any given time, you still can’t force feed growth. Your nutrient NEEDS may indeed be more at a given time than at others, and you can certainly do your best to address them, but there will still be a finite point within a chosen period.

S[/quote]

Thank god stu got my over arching point. Makes feel slightly better [/quote]
This is more of a consensus between the ‘sides’ than is probably realised[/quote]

Right so the bbing pro picks sides? Come on man[/quote]
What I’m saying is that the same is being said both ways, synthesis varies, eat to advantage, don’t go crazy though
I wrote sides as ‘sides’ because on this topic there are no real sides just a set of similar points not as far apart from each other as it may first appear

269

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It is correct to understand that certain variables can have an effect on how much can be synthesized at a certain point (age, stress, experience levels, etc), BUT even within those specific guidelines (whatever they may be), at any given time, you still can’t force feed growth. Your nutrient NEEDS may indeed be more at a given time than at others, and you can certainly do your best to address them, but there will still be a finite point within a chosen period.

S[/quote]

Thank god stu got my over arching point. Makes feel slightly better [/quote]
This is more of a consensus between the ‘sides’ than is probably realised[/quote]

Right so the bbing pro picks sides? Come on man[/quote]
What I’m saying is that the same is being said both ways, synthesis varies, eat to advantage, don’t go crazy though
I wrote sides as ‘sides’ because on this topic there are no real sides just a set of similar points not as far apart from each other as it may first appear[/quote]

But when one “side” writes…

“Fact: naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period”

Then the other “side” writes…

“Statement: Fact: naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period”

Truth: All humans have variable rates at which they synthesize muscle and this is an adaptive ability as well. Increased training can increase protein anabolism…meaning synthesis of muscle tissue is not static but changes in rate due to many variables…like age, stress, overall conditioning, sleep, etc. "

…as a sort of refutation to the first statement, the only thing that can be implied is that the second “side” disagrees there is a limit to synthesis in a time period. Otherwise side B would have said “Yes, there is a limit but it varies a bit here and there due to certain factors.”

As if Side A even insinuated synthesis was static.

It’s taking a statement that I think everyone agrees with, as you’ve said, and finding something ridiculous to counter point on that was never even stated in the first place (like synthesis not being static). You can only assume, then, that it’s 1) arguing to argue or 2) they disagree that there is a limit.

However, I suspect it was worded in such a fashion to allow deniability that any implication of that sort is there at all.

270

[quote]AzCats wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Fact naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period
Fact only so many calories are needed for this
Fact eating more adds only bF that will need to be lost unless BF is of no concern

Anything others want to add to this list?[/quote]

Add to it?

Statement: Fact naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period

Truth: All humans have variable rates at which they synthesize muscle and this is an adaptive ability as well. Increased training can increase protein anabolism…meaning synthesis of muscle tissue is not static but changes in rate due to many variables…like age, stress, overall conditioning, sleep, etc…

Statement:Fact only so many calories are needed for this

Truth: The amount of calories needed for this changes as the needs of the body change. It can not be predicted but you can try to feed it when it is most ready to grow.

Statement: Fact eating more adds only bF that will need to be lost unless BF is of no concern

Truth: Combined with intense training, adding muscular body weight even if fat is added could contribute to increased leverage which could increase the weight used for exercises…which alone could lead to more muscle growth. Joint lubrication and stability is also a factor as many notice a decrease in joint integrity with extremely lean body comps.

Hormonal fluctuations associated with age may also allow more muscle to be built from more intake. This is why it is often discussed that even obese people do NOT just gain body fat…they gain fat and muscle tissue…even if that muscle gain is minimal…it comes without training.[/quote]

Plz note I did not finite numbers there just because of this so…not sure what your argument is[/quote]
I don’t normally jump into these types of threads and don’t always agree with what X has to say, but I thought this post counteracting what Ryan stated as fact to be pretty well put. I think things would have went in a different direction had you stated it like this:

IMO: naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period
IMO: only so many calories are needed for this
IMO: eating more adds only bF that will need to be lost unless BF is of no concern

[/quote]

Bingo.

271

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It is correct to understand that certain variables can have an effect on how much can be synthesized at a certain point (age, stress, experience levels, etc), BUT even within those specific guidelines (whatever they may be), at any given time, you still can’t force feed growth. Your nutrient NEEDS may indeed be more at a given time than at others, and you can certainly do your best to address them, but there will still be a finite point within a chosen period.

S[/quote]

It isn’t and never has been about your concept of “forcing growth”. It is about understanding how responsive and adaptable your body is at different stages through the life of an individual and taking full advantage to see the most growth.

Let me know if you want to discuss this further as it seems you continue using “forcing growth” when I don’t see anyone writing it out in that way.

Maybe the discussion would go better if you understood that this is NOT what is being discussed.

272

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It is correct to understand that certain variables can have an effect on how much can be synthesized at a certain point (age, stress, experience levels, etc), BUT even within those specific guidelines (whatever they may be), at any given time, you still can’t force feed growth. Your nutrient NEEDS may indeed be more at a given time than at others, and you can certainly do your best to address them, but there will still be a finite point within a chosen period.

S[/quote]

It isn’t and never has been about your concept of “forcing growth”. It is about understanding how responsive and adaptable your body is at different stages through the life of an individual and taking full advantage to see the most growth.

Let me know if you want to discuss this further as it seems you continue using “forcing growth” when I don’t see anyone writing it out in that way.

Maybe the discussion would go better if you understood that this is NOT what is being discussed.[/quote]

I don’t know if it was directed at you… but there are plenty of [noobs] who actually DO think you can force growth, based on stuff written on other sites, blogs and just general misunderstanding of the whole “bulking” process. Just simple stuff like “if one steak helps me grow, then two steaks will help me grow more”.

I’ve never seen you advocate anything more than basically “eat enough so that the nutrients are there when your body needs them”.

273

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It is correct to understand that certain variables can have an effect on how much can be synthesized at a certain point (age, stress, experience levels, etc), BUT even within those specific guidelines (whatever they may be), at any given time, you still can’t force feed growth. Your nutrient NEEDS may indeed be more at a given time than at others, and you can certainly do your best to address them, but there will still be a finite point within a chosen period.

S[/quote]

It isn’t and never has been about your concept of “forcing growth”. It is about understanding how responsive and adaptable your body is at different stages through the life of an individual and taking full advantage to see the most growth.

Let me know if you want to discuss this further as it seems you continue using “forcing growth” when I don’t see anyone writing it out in that way.

Maybe the discussion would go better if you understood that this is NOT what is being discussed.[/quote]

I didn’t say anything that contradicts what you just wrote, I merely clarified what I think some people might have misunderstood. For some people, it has been about forcing growth. The discussion has been going just fine, thanks. I really have no need to discuss it further, I already understand things just fine :slight_smile:

S

274

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
It is correct to understand that certain variables can have an effect on how much can be synthesized at a certain point (age, stress, experience levels, etc), BUT even within those specific guidelines (whatever they may be), at any given time, you still can’t force feed growth. Your nutrient NEEDS may indeed be more at a given time than at others, and you can certainly do your best to address them, but there will still be a finite point within a chosen period.

S[/quote]

It isn’t and never has been about your concept of “forcing growth”. It is about understanding how responsive and adaptable your body is at different stages through the life of an individual and taking full advantage to see the most growth.

Let me know if you want to discuss this further as it seems you continue using “forcing growth” when I don’t see anyone writing it out in that way.

Maybe the discussion would go better if you understood that this is NOT what is being discussed.[/quote]

I don’t know if it was directed at you… but there are plenty of [noobs] who actually DO think you can force growth, based on stuff written on other sites, blogs and just general misunderstanding of the whole “bulking” process. Just simple stuff like “if one steak helps me grow, then two steaks will help me grow more”.

I’ve never seen you advocate anything more than basically “eat enough so that the nutrients are there when your body needs them”.[/quote]

Why would what someone else writes on another forum mean anything to me though?

275

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I didn’t say anything that contradicts what you just wrote, I merely clarified what I think some people might have misunderstood. For some people, it has been about forcing growth. The discussion has been going just fine, thanks. I really have no need to discuss it further, I already understand things just fine :slight_smile:

S[/quote]

I am very glad for you.

276

I dont know if this is a legit thread anymore, but I’d thought I’d weigh in anyway because I havent seen this kind of stuff posted during my time browsing the thread.

Here is the competitor list for the 1988 Mr Olympia Contest, with each competitors weight listed. Each competitor is MOST CERTAINLY on drugs, and given that they are shredded to the bone here (and likely using diuretics) this list probably gives us a good list of what their true LBM is

1 Lee Haney 243 1/4
2 Rich Gaspari 209 1/2
3 Berry DeMey 227
4 Lee Labrada 176
5 Gary Strydom 229
6 Mike Quinn 204
7 Brian Buchanan 210
8 Samir Bannout 205
9 Ron Love 222 1/2
10 Bob Paris 226
11 Mohamed Benaziza 188
12 Phil Hill 222 1/2
13 Shawn Ray 201 1/2
14 Mike Ashley 189 1/2
15 Al Beckles 200
16 Ed Kawak 215
17 Robby Robinson 216 1/2
18 Peter Hensel 240 1/2
19 Luiz Freitas 219 1/2
20 Ralf Moeller 288

And just to add an extra competitor, Frank Zane used to compete at 180-185

Lets take a look at a few of the more interesting numbers from my point of view

Mike Ashley, Lee Labrada, and Rich Gaspari, Shawn Ray, Al Beckles, Mike Quinn, Samir Bannout

So here you have 7 guys who are all juiced to the gills, and have been for years and years, and are among the genetically elite (I think its safe to assume anyone on the O stage qualifies for that title)… and the heaviest one is tipping the scales at 210

210 pounds. ALL of the guys are coming in under this (the only notably short exception is Labrada is 5’6". I believe everyone else is over 5’8")

So if there is ANY discussion as to NATURALS with more than 210 pounds of LEAN mass… You really must be something because you are outdoing the best of the best in the world when they are on huge amounts of drugs.

If you are a natural of around 5’8-ish height and you have thoughts that your “stage weight” is at or around 200 pounds… You might want to rethink that number just a tad bit. Pull up a pic of Al Beckles and tell me if thats about what you would look like dieted down.

277

^Ashley always maintained that he was clean, think what you want about that.

S

278

Although, at the end of the day I really dont think any of this discussion matters for those of us that are never going to take steroids…

We just go to the gym and bust our ass, eat so we arent fat asses, maybe diet down for a show, and whatever the hell we end up looking like is what we look like.

279

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

If you are a natural of around 5’8-ish height and you have thoughts that your “stage weight” is at or around 200 pounds… You might want to rethink that number just a tad bit. Pull up a pic of Al Beckles and tell me if thats about what you would look like dieted down.

[/quote]

I think this should be a mandatory post in any and every prep thread on this site from now on hahaha, great post!

280

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
^Ashley always maintained that he was clean, think what you want about that.

S[/quote]

Well, that would be a major point, right? That anyone who has claimed natural with more lean body mass is never believed to be so.