Eat lots of food while you are young and can get away with it.
Epic.
I just saved myself years of dental school loans.
X doesn’t seem to understand that you lose A LOT of water, fat and yes MUSCLE when you diet down. He’d be about 170 if he got in contest shape, especially since his set point is so high, the last 30 lbs he lost would include about 10 lbs of muscle. Add another 15 lbs of muscle lost just to get to that point, and he’s lost around 25 lbs of muscle alone from where he’s at now. And he’s probably got about 65 lbs of fat/water to lose.
Unless he diets down to understand this point, he is no better than a scrawny guy talking about how to get huge, or a virgin giving sex advice.
At X’s bodyfat percentage, the top natural guys his height are easily 300+. But they never get that fat, so you won’t find the example’s he’s demanding. How convenient. Allow his delusion to persist.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Look up some of Layne Norton’s research on this.
[quote]steven alex wrote:
I think if it is true that Sumo Wrestlers have built more muscle than top bodybuilders then I think it isn’t too large a leap of faith that PX may have done so. They seem to have a very similar diet methodology and on top of this PX trains with weights with the express intention of muscle gains.
I don’t think PX ever said he would have more muscle than the top natty bodybuilder’s once he dieted down just that he has built more when measured as he is now against a contest ready natty.
[/quote]
Do these sumo wrestlers have more muscle by the virtue of letting their body fat go into the obese + range? Maybe, but other than the hamstring here or there the muscle they have doesn’t show through all the fat they have.
Btw I always though this thread(and the previous one) was about how much muscle one would carry at a reasonable body fat percentage like 15% or 8-12% bodyfat which would be abs in condition.
I’m a little confused where we first settled on the fact that sumos do indeed carry much more muscle mass than bodybuilders (PED use or not). I can understand the perceived strength because of the sheer girth of their bodies as they slam into each other, hence the benefit of adding all that fat, and may be some actual strength gains from moving around their own bulk each day, but I’ve known plenty of strong guys who haven’t had impressive amounts of muscular mass.
Has anyone truly looked into this, or is it just more internet silliness?
S
[quote]wramsey wrote:
X doesn’t seem to understand that you lose A LOT of water, fat and yes MUSCLE when you diet down. He’d be about 170 if he got in contest shape,[/quote]
Seriously…just stop. I need to lose nearly 90lbs to get into contest shape?
This has to be comedy.
[quote]
especially since his set point is so high, the last 30 lbs he lost would include about 10 lbs of muscle. Add another 15 lbs of muscle lost just to get to that point, and he’s lost around 25 lbs of muscle alone from where he’s at now. And he’s probably got about 65 lbs of fat/water to lose. [/quote]
What pictures are you looking at?
Further, why are we even discussing contest condition?
You have no clue what you are talking about.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’m a little confused where we first settled on the fact that sumos do indeed carry much more muscle mass than bodybuilders (PED use or not). I can understand the perceived strength because of the sheer girth of their bodies as they slam into each other, hence the benefit of adding all that fat, and may be some actual strength gains from moving around their own bulk each day, but I’ve known plenty of strong guys who haven’t had impressive amounts of muscular mass.
Has anyone truly looked into this, or is it just more internet silliness?
S[/quote]
MassiveGuns used two abstracts involving sumo wrestlers to argue the point that all out bulking adds the most muscle. Ill put the quotes here.
[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]
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Sumos have longer fasicles… Looks like their muscles stretched…[/quote]
[quote]Myosin wrote:
Eat lots of food while you are young and can get away with it.
Epic.
I just saved myself years of dental school loans.[/quote]
Maybe you should sign up and get better educated.
And yes, a teenager still growing can get away with eating on a more loose diet and still gain more muscle.
If you don’t understand this, maybe you should stop mocking and start learning more.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
MassiveGuns used two abstracts involving sumo wrestlers to argue the point that all out bulking adds the most muscle. Ill put the quotes here.
[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]
[/quote]
It doesn’t really say much, except that of the bodybuilders they selected, and the sumos they selected, the average FMM%s were different. This could be due to the sample groups, if PEDs played a role, if the bodybuilders were actually professional level or just some schmucks with containers of cel-tek on top of the fridge in their apartment -lol.
You would think if a study like this was significant it would have been referenced more by coaches whose job it is to pack on as much muscle as possible on their clients.
S
[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]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
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]
Well, I tried creating a new thread but it seems to be in limbo somewhere. If that thread ever gets created, I’ll copy things over.
Unfortunately I don’t represent the ideal situation there with the “under 25 and above average genetics”.
What sort of dietary approach would you suggest for someone who has the genetics of a distance runner and an appetite that self-regulates to 135lbs @ 5’10?
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
MassiveGuns used two abstracts involving sumo wrestlers to argue the point that all out bulking adds the most muscle. Ill put the quotes here.
[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]
[/quote]
It doesn’t really say much, except that of the bodybuilders they selected, and the sumos they selected, the average FMM%s were different. This could be due to the sample groups, if PEDs played a role, if the bodybuilders were actually professional level or just some schmucks with containers of cel-tek on top of the fridge in their apartment -lol.
You would think if a study like this was significant it would have been referenced more by coaches whose job it is to pack on as much muscle as possible on their clients.
S[/quote]
It’s obvious those coaches don’t know anything and MG And X should train everybody
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]wramsey wrote:
X doesn’t seem to understand that you lose A LOT of water, fat and yes MUSCLE when you diet down. He’d be about 170 if he got in contest shape,[/quote]
Seriously…just stop. I need to lose nearly 90lbs to get into contest shape?
This has to be comedy.
[quote]
especially since his set point is so high, the last 30 lbs he lost would include about 10 lbs of muscle. Add another 15 lbs of muscle lost just to get to that point, and he’s lost around 25 lbs of muscle alone from where he’s at now. And he’s probably got about 65 lbs of fat/water to lose. [/quote]
What pictures are you looking at?
Further, why are we even discussing contest condition?
You have no clue what you are talking about.[/quote]
How do you even know what you’d weigh lean let alone contest shape as you are not even in realm of lean.
[quote]wramsey wrote:
…you lose A LOT of water, fat and yes MUSCLE when you diet down.
[/quote]
Muscle lost on a deficit is exaggerated and insignificant in the grand scheme. Muscle that isn’t there when you are done with your deficit was imaginary to start with.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]wramsey wrote:
X doesn’t seem to understand that you lose A LOT of water, fat and yes MUSCLE when you diet down. He’d be about 170 if he got in contest shape,[/quote]
Seriously…just stop. I need to lose nearly 90lbs to get into contest shape?
This has to be comedy.
[quote]
especially since his set point is so high, the last 30 lbs he lost would include about 10 lbs of muscle. Add another 15 lbs of muscle lost just to get to that point, and he’s lost around 25 lbs of muscle alone from where he’s at now. And he’s probably got about 65 lbs of fat/water to lose. [/quote]
What pictures are you looking at?
Further, why are we even discussing contest condition?
You have no clue what you are talking about.[/quote]
In the video Det posted, CT himself told you that you’re not carrying as much muscle as you think. He used the guy he prepped as an example and said he started at 244 with abs and competed at 195. You’re AT LEAST 25lbs of fat away from having abs, and assuming you’d have to drop the same 50-ish pounds to get contest ready, 170-180 sounds about right.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]wramsey wrote:
X doesn’t seem to understand that you lose A LOT of water, fat and yes MUSCLE when you diet down. He’d be about 170 if he got in contest shape,[/quote]
Seriously…just stop. I need to lose nearly 90lbs to get into contest shape?
This has to be comedy.
This
Watching A big guy prep currently (assisted) and he has gone from 280 wit abs to 255 and he will be competing around 240 ish. Again this is assisted and that alters so much. You can retain all muscle and even grow into the show and he started with full abs.X has 30lbs to lose to see abs
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]wramsey wrote:
X doesn’t seem to understand that you lose A LOT of water, fat and yes MUSCLE when you diet down. He’d be about 170 if he got in contest shape,[/quote]
Seriously…just stop. I need to lose nearly 90lbs to get into contest shape?
This has to be comedy.
This
Watching A big guy prep currently (assisted) and he has gone from 280 wit abs to 255 and he will be competing around 240 ish. Again this is assisted and that alters so much. You can retain all muscle and even grow into the show and he started with full abs.X has 30lbs to lose to see abs[/quote]
I don’t mean any of that as a jab, just pointing out the seemingly obvious. 5’10" at a shredded 175-180 is a bad boy. Think that’s basically what Mad Titan clocks in at, and he looks like a fucking cartoon character. Using scale weight and unnecessary bulk as a barometer of muscular progress is disingenuous and more than likely counterproductive.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[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… 
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[/quote]
What was laughable was that I should eat grass and take estrogen to get hooooge.
Can you PLEASE go to school and learn basic reading comprehension. I stated that sumos are not renown for EXCESSIVE drug use. Some sumos do use drugs, this is fact. Do they dose up ronnie coleman style? No they don’t. Your average bodybuilder uses way more gear than your average sumo.
And 3rdly, its a waste of time because there aren’t any hence the challenge, and trolls don’t take the time to make reasoned posts backed up with evidence like I do. So I guess you are retarded after all. Good luck with that.
Have you grasped why your first premise was meaningless yet? PX summed it up nicely.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
MassiveGuns used two abstracts involving sumo wrestlers to argue the point that all out bulking adds the most muscle. Ill put the quotes here.
[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]
[/quote]
It doesn’t really say much, except that of the bodybuilders they selected, and the sumos they selected, the average FMM%s were different. This could be due to the sample groups, if PEDs played a role, if the bodybuilders were actually professional level or just some schmucks with containers of cel-tek on top of the fridge in their apartment -lol.
You would think if a study like this was significant it would have been referenced more by coaches whose job it is to pack on as much muscle as possible on their clients.
S[/quote]
It might be an idea to read the paper and not the abstract before publicly stating an opinion. And just because everyone thinks the world is flat, does not mean that it is.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
MassiveGuns used two abstracts involving sumo wrestlers to argue the point that all out bulking adds the most muscle. Ill put the quotes here.
[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]
[/quote]
It doesn’t really say much, except that of the bodybuilders they selected, and the sumos they selected, the average FMM%s were different. This could be due to the sample groups, if PEDs played a role, if the bodybuilders were actually professional level or just some schmucks with containers of cel-tek on top of the fridge in their apartment -lol.
You would think if a study like this was significant it would have been referenced more by coaches whose job it is to pack on as much muscle as possible on their clients.
S[/quote]
It’s obvious those coaches don’t know anything and MG And X should train everybody [/quote]
If I was a smart coach, I’d make my clients take plenty of time making gains. That way I’d have a much better long term income stream from them.