I only mentioned naturals because that is all 3dmj trains. I said “same” with Mike in regard to the number of clients.
I also clearly understand what lucasmon is saying. Paul was asking what kind of results these other coaches systems have gotten.
So someone asking a genuine question to a coach whose opinion they respect, wanting a bit of clarification about a routine you ran to the letter and grew a massive amount on, that you now disagree with a key aspect of is a pointless question that isnt deemed fit to respond to. Yet the trolls keep baiting you in with the natty vs drugs stuff. Fair enough.
2 Likes
Loll.
LOL! Even stated in the question is the knowledge that I consistently espouse 1 gram per pound of bw.
If the 2 grams per pound of bw created an enormous difference in the rate of gain, I’d be saying that. But I did it, and saw no difference when I brought it back down to 1g/lb.
Not only that I’ve referenced many different well done studies that show that higher protein intakes don’t mean more muscle growth. It just doesn’t convert to fat even when it’s in a caloric surplus.
It’s one area I don’t agree with Dante on. The need for 2 grams per pound of bw in terms of protein intake. And the studies back that up. And I’ve got article after article stating that 1gm/lb is going to be enough.
Some deductive reasoning goes a long way.
I have the appetite of one of those people who have to ride on a flat bed so this is important. 
Thanks, you do respond better when people are being obtuse.
Genuine question as I have not read the studies. where does it go?
So Dantes 2g is more about making sure your hitting your calorie target to grow without the amount of risk of fat gain that would come if you overshot it with carbs, rather than it be about forcing extra growth.
The problem is that you were calling out other training systems that produce “mass monsters” for steroids, but some of the people you are bringing up use steroids as well. The question then is why aren’t they producing any mass monsters since they are all on juice?
As for natural bodybuilders, I take that with a grain of salt. The IPF is supposed to be for natural powerlifters but people keep testing positive. Do you think it’s different in bodybuilding?
It sounds to me like they are just using big words to try and sound smart but there is no substance to it. 90% of people wouldn’t even understand what that is supposed to mean anyway, all they get from it is “increase volume every week for more gains”.
It goes towards whole body protein synthesis, muscle protein synthesis, then gets excreted out if it’s not used for those things basically.
t-nation has had those studies in articles here. This study actually did 4.4 grams per kilo. Which is a metric ass load…
Results
The HP group consumed significantly more protein and calories pre vs post (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the HP group consumed significantly more protein and calories than the CON (p < 0.05). The HP group consumed on average 307 ± 69 grams of protein compared to 138 ± 42 in the CON. When expressed per unit body weight, the HP group consumed 4.4 ± 0.8 g/kg/d of protein versus 1.8 ± 0.4 g/kg/d in the CON. There were no changes in training volume for either group. Moreover, there were no significant changes over time or between groups for body weight, fat mass, fat free mass, or percent body fat.
Conclusions
Consuming 5.5 times the recommended daily allowance of protein has no effect on body composition in resistance-trained individuals who otherwise maintain the same training regimen. This is the first interventional study to demonstrate that consuming a hypercaloric high protein diet does not result in an increase in body fat.
1 Like
What are you talking about? I was saying that no system will produce mass monsters. Whether it be low volume, high volume, whatever, drugs produce mass monsters not a special training system. Perhaps what you consider a mass monster is not.
I wanted to really dig into this so I hit up two guys smarter than me about this because I was pondering it.
With powerlifting it’s a real thing. The issue is, the strength gains that reveal themselves occur after the recovery period. Follow me here…
You train to create adaptations. Once those happen, in order for them to actually be revealed the recovery from the training stimulus has to happen. The actual adaptations happened during the training phase, then manifest during the recovery phase.
Here’s the thing tho…it’s short lived. With strength training I mean. Generally speaking you have a small window where you’re stronger than usual from a peaking cycle. I always said that anecdotally, your peak was about a day or two on both sides of the meet. So if you trained in a way that created those needed adaptations, they would manifest for a few days after recovery happened.
With hypertrophy, what I gather, is that it’s similar. There will be an upswing in growth during the recovery phase, but just like in the strength game, they go away after that. If you did not stimulate the muscle growth during the training phase, then there’s no magic happening during the supercompensation phase. That phase is only revealing what was stimulated in the training phase of the cycle.
All of the adaptations that were achieved during the overreaching phase start to fade away. This includes any gains in muscle size and maximum strength.
1 Like
@Paul_Carter Heres a couple for you
Do you think there is a true, hard genetic limit of muscle mass (which would vary by individual) in terms of once an individual gets there, there really is nothing left to do but maintain? ie - If a persons “hard limit” is a lean 185 (or whatever number) that all the training in the world, no matter how smart or hard, will simply not do anything more for them?
I wonder what is happening physiologically there… why doesnt the body add more muscle without steroids after a certain point even with the correct stimulus? Any idea?
Also - Given that there IS a limit, can any training program, intelligently applied, get you there? Assuming you are making gains from month to month is it only a matter of time before you hit the limit, and all the minutia being disucssed is really only about getting you there faster, or more efficiently, or more safely, or more XYZ?
1 Like
Thanks very much for that. Kinda makes sense why Dante would still advocate the higher protein intake, although it isnt actually equalling more muscle tissue. I think if he had said 1g per lb and then hammer the carbs he would have a lot more fattys on his hands and lots more people making bad food choices.
Protein also has a high thermic effect, so if you double your protein intake you are increasing your calorie burn quite dramatically,~25-30cals per hundred cals of protein… So if you take in another 200g of protein, as paul said above all of it you dont use gets excreted without turning into fat, but it still ramps up your metabolism hundreds of calories/day, which is nothing to sneeze at.
2 Likes
2g per lb would be brutal to ingest imo. 200 grams is hard enough for me to eat and half way enjoy life.
I think most people over eat protein. I get in anywhere from 100-130g daily (some days I’ll be in that 150-200g range) and I’ve never had an issue gaining muscle, size and strength. I know I got some big lifts especially at my size. I’m probably bit of an outlier and have good genetics but unless you are a really big person I don’t think you need a crazy amount of protein. I keep my carbs pretty high though (4-6 cups of rice daily and lots of fruit). This is just my personal opinion though.
Paul, what do you think about Mentzer commenting that Yates movements were too ballistic (especially on the eccentric portion) and it made him too prone to injury?
Sounds like he’s implying that a certain intensity needs to be paired with very slow negatives as a hard rule, there’s any proof to it?
There’s a multitude of factors there, including how many fibers you have, myostatin, and genetically speaking how thick the fibers can get, and the type of fibers you have. But there’s even more to it than that. The point is, yes we have a genetic ceiling for a reason. The organs still have to support all of these things and the body is going to be smart enough to say “I probably can’t support that much functional tissue, so let’s cap it here.”
Would it make sense to be able to just keep growing and growing? Not to me.
Yes I think lots of guys, myself included, hit their genetic limit naturally. I was mid 250’s and while not LEAN, wasn’t overly fat, and ended up at 210 in single digits. Which apparently is rare. So I believe I probably maxed that out.
These are mostly philosophical questions and I honestly think people need to just buckle down and not think about it or worry about it. I didn’t, and I got there. If that tells you anything.
1 Like
Honest question about DC training as that has come up here: is there no “room” in it for structural work like side raises, face pulls, adductors? Or do those just become one of your main movements? Or something else?
1 Like
This argument is going nowhere, let’s just leave it at that.