Part 2: What Naturals are Truly Capable Of

Training
141

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]Mr.Jeannay wrote:
Sorry, but who cares how much muscle you have if you cant see it? That is the reason why bodybuilders also diet down for a contest. The sumo wrestler example is not valid. why dont you skip the training and just eat , you will look big… and soft. [/quote]

I have seen countless times on other forums(Where many of the members are insanely big and ripped) that the competitors stopped getting sloppy in the offseason from comments they got. If you’re gonna be a bodybuilder, you should always look like a bodybuilder. Typically, they also make better gains as well because they don’t have to diet as hard for contest prep. [/quote]
The issue is, the guy you are obviously referring to, isn’t a bodybuilder.
He doesn’t want to/plan to do a show.
He doesn’t really care to ever get down to the 10-12% BF range that most off season guys seem to stay in/around.
He just wants to be big.
That’s the disconnect IMO.

Comparing gym rat/big guy to actual bodybuilders is apples to oranges. [/quote]

The point I was trying to make is that if you work your ass off in the gym for years, it should look like you do. Staying a little leaner is a good way to show your hard work instead of just looking big, or bigger. [/quote]
I agree but some people, not pointing any fingers, enjoy food and don’t like doing cardio.
Those are usually the “bigger” guys.
[/quote]

Love food, hate cardio. No so big. [/quote]
I’m right there with ya

142

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]Mr.Jeannay wrote:
Sorry, but who cares how much muscle you have if you cant see it? That is the reason why bodybuilders also diet down for a contest. The sumo wrestler example is not valid. why dont you skip the training and just eat , you will look big… and soft. [/quote]

I have seen countless times on other forums(Where many of the members are insanely big and ripped) that the competitors stopped getting sloppy in the offseason from comments they got. If you’re gonna be a bodybuilder, you should always look like a bodybuilder. Typically, they also make better gains as well because they don’t have to diet as hard for contest prep. [/quote]
The issue is, the guy you are obviously referring to, isn’t a bodybuilder.
He doesn’t want to/plan to do a show.
He doesn’t really care to ever get down to the 10-12% BF range that most off season guys seem to stay in/around.
He just wants to be big.
That’s the disconnect IMO.

Comparing gym rat/big guy to actual bodybuilders is apples to oranges. [/quote]

The point I was trying to make is that if you work your ass off in the gym for years, it should look like you do. Staying a little leaner is a good way to show your hard work instead of just looking big, or bigger. [/quote]

Oh so you don’t want to be big. Gtfo ;)[/quote]

I don’t wanna be big, I wanna be hyooge.

143

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Definitions per above:
natural = no prohormone or AAS usage
bulked = gained weight as both muscle and fat, and reached a point where they could no longer see any ab definition at all[/quote]

I meet all qualifications.

144

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]Mr.Jeannay wrote:
Sorry, but who cares how much muscle you have if you cant see it? That is the reason why bodybuilders also diet down for a contest. The sumo wrestler example is not valid. why dont you skip the training and just eat , you will look big… and soft. [/quote]

I have seen countless times on other forums(Where many of the members are insanely big and ripped) that the competitors stopped getting sloppy in the offseason from comments they got. If you’re gonna be a bodybuilder, you should always look like a bodybuilder. Typically, they also make better gains as well because they don’t have to diet as hard for contest prep. [/quote]
The issue is, the guy you are obviously referring to, isn’t a bodybuilder.
He doesn’t want to/plan to do a show.
He doesn’t really care to ever get down to the 10-12% BF range that most off season guys seem to stay in/around.
He just wants to be big.
That’s the disconnect IMO.

Comparing gym rat/big guy to actual bodybuilders is apples to oranges. [/quote]

The point I was trying to make is that if you work your ass off in the gym for years, it should look like you do. Staying a little leaner is a good way to show your hard work instead of just looking big, or bigger. [/quote]
I agree but some people, not pointing any fingers, enjoy food and don’t like doing cardio.
Those are usually the “bigger” guys.
[/quote]

Love food, hate cardio. No so big. [/quote]

Love food, love cardio to a point as long as I have a good tv show or book or sports, love lifting too much. Not big at all. And I really love food. That’s why I have never truly cut

145

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Definitions per above:
natural = no prohormone or AAS usage
bulked = gained weight as both muscle and fat, and reached a point where they could no longer see any ab definition at all[/quote]

I meet all qualifications.
[/quote]

Couple ?s if you don’t mind

When in your training career was it done?
How long did you remain without abs?
How much dieting did it take to get your abs back?

Thanks for the input

146

[quote]Mr.Jeannay wrote:
there is also the thing of creating an illusion of being bigger, by leaning down, the guy who was posted who is just 165lbs looks big to me ofc not mr-olympia-big, but we are talking here about naturals. (i believe 165lbs is achievable natty) [/quote]

Sme people do not understand that leanness gives a great illusion of extra side

147

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns 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]

I’ve posted TWO references so far that support the argument that muscle can be force fed into existence. Please post ONE reference which supports the basic premise behind what you wrote.

(Plus heres a clue you need to write a coherent argument before you actually try and argue for it, so “Fact naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period” is a retarded premise, since any person, who either lifts doesn’t, uses steroids or not or masturbates regularly can only synthesi(ze) so much muscle in a time period… :slight_smile:

Oh and heres another clue. The “fact” that you can only synthesize a limited amount of muscle tissue in a given time period is not conclusive proof that overfeeding does not change that limit, since the rate is dependant on hormonal status and inuslin is a hormone.
[/quote]

Did those references say the extra muscle was from fore feeding? No

To your middle statement I am not sure it’s english, it makes no sense.

I don’t believe I said anything about force feeding in any of my points. But since you brought it up I will wait for a study to show force feeding changes your bodies ability to syntheiss muscle [/quote]

Your first statement makes no sense, I’m not sure it’s english.

See how gay that was? I ducked the question and managed to make out like im stupid and don’t understand english.

I’ll use what limited powers of reasoning I have to attempt to decipher that incoherent statement.

Did the abstract say those muscles were from force feeding, no. Did the reference? Pull it and read it. You might learn something. Like what quoting a reference means. Does it take much common sense to deduce that when the paper is looking at the upper limit of fat free mass in trained humans, that when sumos are compared to bodybuilders, both groups renown for their eating, that the main and most important factor in becoming a sumo wrestler and therefore gaining muscle mass is the emphasis on eating?

Not much. But more than you have available to you obviously. Ever wonder why such a large part of their diet is rice?

Sumos are not renown for their excessive drug use. Yet they have exceeded bodybuilders, and more importantly the LIMITS on naturally obtained fat free mass for a given height from that faggy table.

Now why don’t you go find some references that support your argument (note what I said there) and post them? Should be a good laugh judging by what you came up with in regard to steroids. And if you do happen to admit to being retarded by not bothering to post anything then I guess someone else could hold your hand and do it for you.

148

[quote]MassiveGuns 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]

I’ve posted TWO references so far that support the argument that muscle can be force fed into existence. Please post ONE reference which supports the basic premise behind what you wrote.

(Plus heres a clue you need to write a coherent argument before you actually try and argue for it, so “Fact naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period” is a retarded premise, since any person, who either lifts doesn’t, uses steroids or not or masturbates regularly can only synthesi(ze) so much muscle in a time period… :slight_smile:

Oh and heres another clue. The “fact” that you can only synthesize a limited amount of muscle tissue in a given time period is not conclusive proof that overfeeding does not change that limit, since the rate is dependant on hormonal status and inuslin is a hormone.
[/quote]

I’ll make it simple for you. My left testicle can only synthesize so much muscle in a time period.

Mean anything?

149

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Definitions per above:
natural = no prohormone or AAS usage
bulked = gained weight as both muscle and fat, and reached a point where they could no longer see any ab definition at all[/quote]

I meet all qualifications.
[/quote]

Couple ?s if you don’t mind

When in your training career was it done?
How long did you remain without abs?
How much dieting did it take to get your abs back?

Thanks for the input [/quote]

I suspect I peaked in my late thirties…so at the fifteen year mark.
My surplus periods usually lasted 18-30 months and I took about the first 6-8 to smooth out.
(maximum 10-15% over my previous lean weight)
I’ve never ran a deficit for more than 12 weeks. 20-30 lbs to loose is about it.

150

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Definitions per above:
natural = no prohormone or AAS usage
bulked = gained weight as both muscle and fat, and reached a point where they could no longer see any ab definition at all[/quote]

I meet all qualifications.
[/quote]

Couple ?s if you don’t mind

When in your training career was it done?
How long did you remain without abs?
How much dieting did it take to get your abs back?

Thanks for the input [/quote]

I suspect I peaked in my late thirties…so at the fifteen year mark.
My surplus periods usually lasted 18-30 months and I took about the first 6-8 to smooth out.
(maximum 10-15% over my previous lean weight)
I’ve never ran a deficit for more than 12 weeks. 20-30 lbs to loose is about it.
[/quote]

Thanks for the input.
Going off how lean you get you probably only went up to 15-17% random guess with irrelevant numbers but only pushing weight 10-15% seems reasonable because that is not a lot to cut back down. Especially considering some that new weight will be muscle.

151

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns 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]

I’ve posted TWO references so far that support the argument that muscle can be force fed into existence. Please post ONE reference which supports the basic premise behind what you wrote.

(Plus heres a clue you need to write a coherent argument before you actually try and argue for it, so “Fact naturals can only synthesis so much muscle in a time period” is a retarded premise, since any person, who either lifts doesn’t, uses steroids or not or masturbates regularly can only synthesi(ze) so much muscle in a time period… :slight_smile:

Oh and heres another clue. The “fact” that you can only synthesize a limited amount of muscle tissue in a given time period is not conclusive proof that overfeeding does not change that limit, since the rate is dependant on hormonal status and inuslin is a hormone.
[/quote]

Did those references say the extra muscle was from fore feeding? No

To your middle statement I am not sure it’s english, it makes no sense.

I don’t believe I said anything about force feeding in any of my points. But since you brought it up I will wait for a study to show force feeding changes your bodies ability to syntheiss muscle [/quote]

Your first statement makes no sense, I’m not sure it’s english.

See how gay that was? I ducked the question and managed to make out like im stupid and don’t understand english.

I’ll use what limited powers of reasoning I have to attempt to decipher that incoherent statement.

Did the abstract say those muscles were from force feeding, no. Did the reference? Pull it and read it. You might learn something. Like what quoting a reference means. Does it take much common sense to deduce that when the paper is looking at the upper limit of fat free mass in trained humans, that when sumos are compared to bodybuilders, both groups renown for their eating, that the main and most important factor in becoming a sumo wrestler and therefore gaining muscle mass is the emphasis on eating?

Not much. But more than you have available to you obviously. Ever wonder why such a large part of their diet is rice?

Sumos are not renown for their excessive drug use. Yet they have exceeded bodybuilders, and more importantly the LIMITS on naturally obtained fat free mass for a given height from that faggy table.

Now why don’t you go find some references that support your argument (note what I said there) and post them? Should be a good laugh judging by what you came up with in regard to steroids. And if you do happen to admit to being retarded by not bothering to post anything then I guess someone else could hold your hand and do it for you.
[/quote]

What was laughable what I came up with in regards to AAS?

I would also like to know how you know sumos don’t use drugs?

And 3rdly me trying find references for you is am utter waste of my time as I just see you as a troll

152

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
I know thats why you care. I’ve tried both approaches myself. Bulking is best for rapid gains. It’s just common sense, give your body everything it needs and more and it will grow. Once you’ve built up a base of muscle and conditioning, then the game changes a little bit. You can stay leaner eating the same calories you were once bulking with. So the increase in calories as a percentage of your total intake is less.

Heres a fact. You need adequate glycogen at all times to maintain cellular hydration, since this acts as a light switch for protein synthesis. You also need insulin, since this is once of the most anabolic hormones your body has. This is even more important when you’re natural. No insulin equals no growth. You get a higher insulin level from eating more food, be it from fats, carbs or protein.

Dairy is insulinogenic. That means it stimulates a higher insulin response than the sum of the carbs,fats and proteins that its made from. Its actually much higher.

If you can’t get your head round that and grow, then nothing will help you.[/quote]

I’m interested in more details, if you don’t mind.

Firstly, with respect to increasing insulin, what’s your take on meal timing? For example, if I were to consume dairy constantly throughout the day, versus 3 specific mealtimes, versus only post-workout, versus… Also, are there other naturally occurring highly insulinogenic products that can be used for this, or is dairy pretty much creme de la creme?

Secondly, what have you found to work as far as building and maintaining glycogen stores?

I’m as much interested in “what to eat” as “when to eat” here. I’ve heard the lean gains side of the story, and I’m familiar with some of the golden-age diets. I’d like to hear more about a modern bulking diet and how you’d actually execute that.

153

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Because one of these days I’d like to be a much larger version of myself, at 10-15% bodyfat.

I want to know whether I’ll get there faster via the “lean gains” approach or the “bulk and cut” approach.

I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one.

But that’s why I care.[/quote]

Lifetime unassisted
Did not begin training until after 23rd birthday
Starting weight was 160 w/limited ab lines showing

I did this…
The problem as I saw it was â??how does a lifter stay goal directed when the long term goal was many years awayâ??? I knew several bodybuilders that used powerlifting competitions during their â??offseasonâ?? periods to maintain tangible training goals. I was introduced to â??periodizationâ?? training and have used it in some form to guide me ever since. I alternated 18-30 month periods were I carried 10-15% over my known lean weight and would usually compete in two or three meets, with 5-14 month periods were I would lean out over the course of several months and spend the summer in â??beach readyâ?? condition.

There were a couple of occasions when I ran the lean period through the winter and following summer but that was rare. While participating in powerlifting I included more volume and isolation movements than conventional PLs did and during lean periods I often worked a lower rep ranges than other BBs did.

I completed my spring deficit at the end of May. There are progress pics in my ‘How do you train’ thread.
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_bigger_stronger_leaner/bluecollar_how_do_you_tr8n?id=5587885&pageNo=2
[/quote]

Thank you for that. Your results are impressive.

I want to ask more about your diets and food choices while doing that, as well as your exercise selection. I should do a more thorough read through that thread before I end up repeating things though.

154

[quote]Mr.Jeannay wrote:
Sorry, but who cares how much muscle you have if you cant see it? That is the reason why bodybuilders also diet down for a contest. The sumo wrestler example is not valid. why dont you skip the training and just eat , you will look big… and soft. [/quote]

Dear Lord.

I can see my muscles. I can’t see striations, but I don’t need to be leaner than I am right now for people to see the muscle built or to think it looks good TO THEM.

Some of you act like you speak for everyone with some specific body type ideal that you think all people on the planet want.

Shit. Some people actually don’t want to look smaller and super ripped.

155

[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]

WTF is this? Where did I write that I was “more muscular than top natty pros”? Please show me this quote.

I don’t care who you want to throw up with the name dropping just so you can continue whatever smear campaign you are on.

As far as “force feeding growth”, do you mean to tell me that taking advantage of specific times in the life of someone where their hormones and recovery are at optimal levels (including joint integrity which can mean more weight lifted especially if leverage is taken advantage of) you will NOT gain more muscle than someone who thinks like what you wrote?

This and only this is why my education is ever discussed. You aren’t discussing biology with a college student.

You just might learn something if you shut the fuck up long enough.

156

[quote]Professor X wrote:
As far as “force feeding growth”, do you mean to tell me that taking advantage of specific times in the life of someone where their hormones and recovery are at optimal levels you will NOT gain more muscle than someone who thinks like what you wrote?

This and only this is why my education is ever discussed. You aren’t discussing biology with a college student.

You just might learn something if you shut the fuck up long enough.[/quote]

I know I basically just asked the same question twice to MassiveGuns and BlueCollarTr8n, but I’m also interested in your opinion too.

What kind of a modern “bulking diet” would you advocate in order to optimize muscle gains and take advantage of hormonal fluctuations, insulin response, etc.?

I’m assuming that your additional training in biology and the human body has given you some insight into how to optimize those processes, so I’m interested in how you would approach it.

157

[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.

158

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
As far as “force feeding growth”, do you mean to tell me that taking advantage of specific times in the life of someone where their hormones and recovery are at optimal levels you will NOT gain more muscle than someone who thinks like what you wrote?

This and only this is why my education is ever discussed. You aren’t discussing biology with a college student.

You just might learn something if you shut the fuck up long enough.[/quote]

I know I basically just asked the same question twice to MassiveGuns and BlueCollarTr8n, but I’m also interested in your opinion too.

What kind of a modern “bulking diet” would you advocate in order to optimize muscle gains and take advantage of hormonal fluctuations, insulin response, etc.?

I’m assuming that your additional training in biology and the human body has given you some insight into how to optimize those processes, so I’m interested in how you would approach it.[/quote]

Ideal situation:

New trainer under the age of 25 with above average genetics who does no gain fat easily. For someone like that with a goal of being really big, those insulin responses to food intake will aid more muscle growth. It is only recently that many people seem to act as if insulin spikes should be avoided. They should if you are trying to lose body fat and retain muscle. That is not ideal for gaining the most muscle possible.

You may want to start another thread. I have a feeling this one will be screwed by the same nonsense that has been happening.

159

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
As far as “force feeding growth”, do you mean to tell me that taking advantage of specific times in the life of someone where their hormones and recovery are at optimal levels you will NOT gain more muscle than someone who thinks like what you wrote?

This and only this is why my education is ever discussed. You aren’t discussing biology with a college student.

You just might learn something if you shut the fuck up long enough.[/quote]

I know I basically just asked the same question twice to MassiveGuns and BlueCollarTr8n, but I’m also interested in your opinion too.

What kind of a modern “bulking diet” would you advocate in order to optimize muscle gains and take advantage of hormonal fluctuations, insulin response, etc.?

I’m assuming that your additional training in biology and the human body has given you some insight into how to optimize those processes, so I’m interested in how you would approach it.[/quote]

Ideal situation:

New trainer under the age of 25 with above average genetics who does no gain fat easily. For someone like that with a goal of being really big, those insulin responses to food intake will aid more muscle growth. It is only recently that many people seem to act as if insulin spikes should be avoided. They should if you are trying to lose body fat and retain muscle. That is not ideal for gaining the most muscle possible.

You may want to start another thread. I have a feeling this one will be screwed by the same nonsense that has been happening.[/quote]

Good call.

160

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
As far as “force feeding growth”, do you mean to tell me that taking advantage of specific times in the life of someone where their hormones and recovery are at optimal levels you will NOT gain more muscle than someone who thinks like what you wrote?

This and only this is why my education is ever discussed. You aren’t discussing biology with a college student.

You just might learn something if you shut the fuck up long enough.[/quote]

I know I basically just asked the same question twice to MassiveGuns and BlueCollarTr8n, but I’m also interested in your opinion too.

What kind of a modern “bulking diet” would you advocate in order to optimize muscle gains and take advantage of hormonal fluctuations, insulin response, etc.?

I’m assuming that your additional training in biology and the human body has given you some insight into how to optimize those processes, so I’m interested in how you would approach it.[/quote]

Ideal situation:

New trainer under the age of 25 with above average genetics who does no gain fat easily. For someone like that with a goal of being really big, those insulin responses to food intake will aid more muscle growth. It is only recently that many people seem to act as if insulin spikes should be avoided. They should if you are trying to lose body fat and retain muscle. That is not ideal for gaining the most muscle possible.

You may want to start another thread. I have a feeling this one will be screwed by the same nonsense that has been happening.[/quote]

Good call.[/quote]
Please don’t start another thread all about this lol
Just discuss it here since the question was posed and this thread is already going.
That new thread will just end up like this one.
Save yourself.