Sumos have longer fasicles… Looks like their muscles stretched…
^Awesome. They only had to look like shit to get that to happen.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Sumos have longer fasicles… Looks like their muscles stretched…[/quote]
Is that some kind of dick reference? Sounds like it
Hope the sit in doesn’t extend to MG otherwise I fucked up
[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
@MassiveGuns-This has never been about whether or not an individual is giving his body what it needs to grow. Do you really think that, just because someone is lean gaining, they aren’t making sure they are feeding their body right? Seriously? They just aren’t overfeeding it in some futile attempt to force more muscular gains. Bro-science much?[/quote]
I do think you misread something there. I don’t think they really cared a whole lot about calories or body composition or how they went about doing it. They just ate a lot, did compounds, and got big and very strong. I believe Arthur Saxon drank something like a 24-pack of beer every day.
Whether they got big FASTER than a more scientific diet, well, I think that’s up for debate.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I wear the same gym clothes many days just a clean shirt.
[/quote]
Wearing the same clothes to the gym multiple days in a row is gross.
Cleanliness is next to godliness.
I guess if you avoid cardio like the plague you won’t sweat and can get away with that.
[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am always clean. I don’t even wear gym clothes twice…so what are you talking about?[/quote]
What I am talking about is the part where you said you wear te same clothes to the gym many days just a clean shirt.[/quote]
MIND.BLOWN!
[/quote]
Lord Zrawder is still looking for you.
Be careful.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.1310060509/abstract
Sumos have more muscle than bodybuilders… What does that tell you?[/quote]
Holy Shit!! I’m going permabulk status.
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?
Fact If you’re a bodybuilder and you’re white, your conditioning is off.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.1310060509/abstract
Sumos have more muscle than bodybuilders… What does that tell you?[/quote]
Something tells me that they won’t have as much muscle if they cut their body fat down to any body fat a respectable bodybuilder is at in comparison.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.1310060509/abstract
Sumos have more muscle than bodybuilders… What does that tell you?[/quote]
Something tells me that they won’t have as much muscle if they cut their body fat down to any body fat a respectable bodybuilder is at in comparison.[/quote]
Thats the point though, I think back when this topic reared its head the original argument was how much muscle a person could gain not how much muscle a person could retain after dieting. Atleast I think that was the original argument
[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]
this. naturals cannot force feed muscle growth, regardless of what X says. If X truly believes he is more muscular than top natty pros than let him live in his dream world.
[quote]ryan.b_96 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]
this. naturals cannot force feed muscle growth, regardless of what X says. If X truly believes he is more muscular than top natty pros than let him live in his dream world.[/quote]
I agree with this for the most part, although I think it’s somewhat an oversimplification.
I don’t really think you can force feed growth via diet alone… but I think that the nutrient partitioning is probably more on a percentage basis than an absolute.
I don’t think it’s quite: “the body uses up what it needs to build muscle, and then it starts storing it as fat”.
I think it’s more like “with no training stimulus, 20% of the protein goes to muscle maintenance, 80% goes to fat” and “with decent training stimulus, 80% of the protein goes to muscle maintenance and synthesis, and 20% goes to fat”.
Those percentages are completely arbitrary. However, I think that things like meal timing and training stimulus shift the distribution of “calories burned for energy now, calories saved for later, calories used to regenerate tissue, etc.”
Additionally I think food composition and presence of various nutrients can shift those distributions by stimulating various hormones and other bodily processes, e.g., intentionally spiking insulin.
If this is the case, then technically you could “force feed muscle growth”, as long as you have adequate training stimulus. It just comes with additional fat, since we can’t quite shift the body to partition 100% of available protein/aminos toward muscle growth.
So while I buy the idea that you could actually build more muscle via this approach (the strength gains of powerlifters and strongmen somewhat support this), I’m not convinced that you’ll be able to retain enough of it to make any noticeable difference compared to someone who takes a lean-gains approach.
I could be completely wrong, but that’s my best guess based on what I’ve learned.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Edit: Hopefully this will be a good thread.
@jeanmich I do think some of those guys you posted are big considering how lean they are. Being huge is a look, not whether one exceeds 200 pounds on the scale.
PX you should put up some pics of naturals that you think that are huge since you think jeanmich examples aren’t good ones.[/quote]
What honestly is with many of you switching up what has been said before?
Massiveguns asked who had a really high body weight and muscularity who never bulked up.
Posting pictures of guys under 180lbs doesn’t seem to fit the bill…and yes, I always was led to believe that it takes way less time for someone that short to fill out their physique.
I am not speaking of guys in contest shape so why would I need to post picture of “naturals” in that condition when there is no way to prove who is or isn’t.
I don’t think anyone but some of you care that much about who is natural and who isn’t.[/quote]
Ogus did bulk up and then diet down. no one is arguing anything about fucking up or not (at least yet until you came in). You are delusional if you think you are somehow bigger than these guys adjusted for height. They are shredded as in under 8%, get off your high horse for fucks sake.
Inb4 oh your twisting what I said, blah blah
You said they’re not huge guys implying your bigger. So no I did not twist anything
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
If size is all that matters, that 900lb guy makes X look tiny.[/quote]
LOL!!!
Because someone is either 10-15% or “massively obese”?!!
LOL!
Yeah, they couldn’t be “17%” and look good.[/quote]
NO ONE EVER SAID THAT JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
The point is your saying you have more muscle than these top naturaly bbers, you don’t. end of story
Pathetic how an almost 40 yr old man can be so delusional, childish, and lack basic logic skills
Mtag666 speaking hard truths.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.1310060509/abstract
Sumos have more muscle than bodybuilders… What does that tell you?[/quote]
The irony of this post could satiate Galactus
[quote]jeanmich wrote:
Fact fat is sexy sometimes.
LOL Stu photobombed the end of the last thread