[quote]Professor X wrote:
And what boat is it that you are in?
What are you current stats and why aren’t you seeing results?
It can only be because of one of three different factors…or a combination of them.
Heavy weight
Enough food to gain muscle mass
and Recovery.
Which are you not doing and why?[/quote]
why do you have to make it so simple now I dont feel special
crys him self to sleep
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
NEWSFLASH: Unless they’re looking for a one-night-stand or a purely physical relathionship,[/quote]
which could be re-worded as “if you work out you will attract women looking for one-night-stands or purely physical relationships”.
Fine by me?!
Two cents from a relative newbie to all this…
If a skinny bastard who weighs 150 at 5’11" wants to wiegh 190 with 10 percent BF, what’s wrong with that? Some of us are into sports like cycling, climbing or running, and weighing 250 is not helpful in these sports.
Second… Most people, including most women, find 10 percent bodyfat more attractive on a man than 5 percent, regardless of weather the guy is 160 pounds or 260 pounds. I have no idea why bodybuilding competitions call for under 5 percent BF when most people agree that 10 percent looks better. Since 10 percent is easier to maintain, I see no reason for people to work for 5 percent.
Also, I recently did the Scrawny to Brawny program while stuffing myself with as much relatively heathy food as I could. My chest, shoulders and arms grew, but so did my gut, so I’m not sure I look better overall than before. Now reading CT’s recent article, I’m wondering if I would have been better off eating 3200 kcals/day rather than the 4000+ JB recommends.
[quote]dancar wrote:
Two cents from a relative newbie to all this…
If a skinny bastard who weighs 150 at 5’11" wants to wiegh 190 with 10 percent BF, what’s wrong with that? Some of us are into sports like cycling, climbing or running, and weighing 250 is not helpful in these sports.
Second… Most people, including most women, find 10 percent bodyfat more attractive on a man than 5 percent, regardless of weather the guy is 160 pounds or 260 pounds. I have no idea why bodybuilding competitions call for under 5 percent BF when most people agree that 10 percent looks better. Since 10 percent is easier to maintain, I see no reason for people to work for 5 percent.
Also, I recently did the Scrawny to Brawny program while stuffing myself with as much relatively heathy food as I could. My chest, shoulders and arms grew, but so did my gut, so I’m not sure I look better overall than before. Now reading CT’s recent article, I’m wondering if I would have been better off eating 3200 kcals/day rather than the 4000+ JB recommends.[/quote]
Gawd. You are A BEGINNER. That article by CT was NOT for you. Considering this was mentioned about 45 times in that discussion, how did you miss it?
The “not for beginners” commennts didn’t start until 5 pages into all the bantering & arguing.
And I don’t even agree with it. All CT said about beginners in the article is that the “you can’t burn fat & add muscle at the same time” rule doesn’t apply to beginners.
Of course, any beginner who lifts hard for three months and adds no weight needs to eat more. But in my case, I was adding weight, including in the love handles region, so I beleive the article DOES apply to me.
[quote]Sxio wrote:
That’s the best you can do?
So much for ‘backing up every word I’ve ever spit onto this screen’. [/quote]
Speaking of backing ups, you jumped on him for not having a picture posted. You’re pissed at what he is doing but then turn around and do it back thinking you are justified.
Like Prof X said, don’t call peoples sizes out unless you have a picture of your own up or ready to go up. You are just being a tool now.
[quote]dancar wrote:
Two cents from a relative newbie to all this…
If a skinny bastard who weighs 150 at 5’11" wants to wiegh 190 with 10 percent BF, what’s wrong with that? Some of us are into sports like cycling, climbing or running, and weighing 250 is not helpful in these sports.
[/quote]
Dude, it’s a BODYBUILDING forum. Shame on you for not understanding that. Go to a cycling forum, and talk to your buddies about your great (150#, 10%) physiques there!
Besides, chances are, if you don’t want to get big, you’re a Biotest freeloader. I.e., you use up bandwidth but never actually purchase anything.
Double shame on you!
How is my example of increasing one’s weight from 150 to 190 while staying at 10 percent or less BF NOT bogybuilding?
[quote]dancar wrote:
How is my example of increasing one’s weight from 150 to 190 while staying at 10 percent or less BF NOT bogybuilding?[/quote]
I think the point you, and others like you, are missing is that the chances of you gaining 40lbs of solid muscle by maintaining LESS than 10% body fat are pretty slim. Unless you are a genetically impressive mesomorph who grows muscle by looking at weights, trying to pull your body in two directions is not the best way to make gains. While those who think like you are spending years gaining a pound here and a pound there, someone who focuses on gaining muscle as their main priority could make a gain like that in less than 2-3 years.
No offense, but let us know how long it takes to gain 40 lbs of LBM without ever going above 10% body fat…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think the point you, and others like you, are missing is that the chances of you gaining 40lbs of solid muscle by maintaining LESS than 10% body fat are pretty slim. [/quote]
Nice pun.
CT needs to issue a mea culpa. If not, his bulkingdo article will be down there with the protein-cycling article and “The Warrior Diet.” I tried both (one on a dare from some guys on the lowcarb-l), because I was young and could afford the risks. Both were worthless, and both articles have been discredited.
I really like CT’s stuff, so I hope he does the right thing by issuing a “retraction.” As is now obvious, skinny guys took - and are taking - his article seriously.
[quote]dancar wrote:
How is my example of increasing one’s weight from 150 to 190 while staying at 10 percent or less BF NOT bogybuilding?[/quote]
You clearly are a newbie. Listen, here’s what will happen, if you are LUCKY.
You’ll start lifting seriously. You’ll take creatine and get your diet in order. You will gain 10 lbs of “stuff” in around 12 weeks. (“Stuff” being muscle and the water creatine brings with it into the muscles.) You will look significantly better, and no fatter.
If you’re lucky, you’ll finish the year by gaining another 5-8 lbs. of muscle.
So if you do things right, you’ll gain 15-18 lbs. of “stuff.” That’s a great year. Enjoy it, because that will be your best year of muscle gains in your life. (Unless you take a cycle of steriods.)
After your first year, if you’re drug free, you will be very lucky to gain 10 lbs. of muscle. If you’re not doing some sort of bulking, you will be lucky to gain 5 lbs. of muscle.
And you’ll keep that pace - again, that’s if you’re not injured, etc.
So if you stick around at 10%, you might be 165 next year. (At 5’10", that’s still embarassingly small, btw.) SEVEN YEARS LATER (again, if you’re incredibily lucky), you’ll be at 190. So, EIGHT YEARS from now, you’ll look good.
Until then, you’ll look like a chicken. Have fun.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
trying to pull your body in two directions is not the best way to make gains. [/quote]
Very well put. Simple, but logical.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
dancar wrote:
How is my example of increasing one’s weight from 150 to 190 while staying at 10 percent or less BF NOT bogybuilding?
You clearly are a newbie. Listen, here’s what will happen, if you are LUCKY.
You’ll start lifting seriously. You’ll take creatine and get your diet in order. You will gain 10 lbs of “stuff” in around 12 weeks. (“Stuff” being muscle and the water creatine brings with it into the muscles.) You will look significantly better, and no fatter.
If you’re lucky, you’ll finish the year by gaining another 5-8 lbs. of muscle.
So if you do things right, you’ll gain 15-18 lbs. of “stuff.” That’s a great year. Enjoy it, because that will be your best year of muscle gains in your life. (Unless you take a cycle of steriods.)
After your first year, if you’re drug free, you will be very lucky to gain 10 lbs. of muscle. If you’re not doing some sort of bulking, you will be lucky to gain 5 lbs. of muscle.
And you’ll keep that pace - again, that’s if you’re not injured, etc.
So if you stick around at 10%, you might be 165 next year. (At 5’10", that’s still embarassingly small, btw.) SEVEN YEARS LATER (again, if you’re incredibily lucky), you’ll be at 190. So, EIGHT YEARS from now, you’ll look good.
Until then, you’ll look like a chicken. Have fun.[/quote]
Long before someone would stick with this for nearly a decade making MINIMAL progress, they would probably quit or become one of the billions who claim they train “off and on”. I’ve never taken any extended time off. That was because I saw progress which lead to even more motivation. I don’t even understand people who have been lifting for 10-15 years and have barely gained a good 20-30lbs in that entire time. You would think they would find a more productive hobby.
I understad what you’re all saying.
My concern with the CT article is that if the human body can only add .25 - .5 pound per week (plus glyceren storage), then it is impossible to know after one or two weeks if you have the amount of calories and the amount of exercise dialed in, because your weight from day to day (at least for me) flucuates within a three pound range according to how much water I’m holding, when I last ate and when I last pooped.
Therefore, it takes at least a month to be certain whether you’re adding muscle with no fat, or if you’re making no progress (or even losing muscle) due to eating only the calories needed to cover your activity level.
For that reason, it may be better to error on the side of eating too much. You can tell after a week or two if you’re gaining weight, and if you’re lifting right, you can be pretty sure you’re adding muscle along with whatever fat you’re getting.
[quote]dancar wrote:
I understad what you’re all saying.
My concern with the CT article is that if the human body can only add .25 - .5 pound per week (plus glyceren storage), then it is impossible to know after one or two weeks if you have the amount of calories and the amount of exercise dialed in, because your weight from day to day (at least for me) flucuates within a three pound range according to how much water I’m holding, when I last ate and when I last pooped.
Therefore, it takes at least a month to be certain whether you’re adding muscle with no fat, or if you’re making no progress (or even losing muscle) due to eating only the calories needed to cover your activity level.
For that reason, it may be better to error on the side of eating too much. You can tell after a week or two if you’re gaining weight, and if you’re lifting right, you can be pretty sure you’re adding muscle along with whatever fat you’re getting. [/quote]
Your body does NOT grow linearly. It grows in spurts. There have been times my weight has shot up 5lbs in a week and then lulled for a month after that and most of that gain was muscle. The fact that you even think the body grows in a mapped out consistent fashion shows that article did more harm than good.
[quote]vroom wrote:
No offense, but let us know how long it takes to gain 40 lbs of LBM without ever going above 10% body fat…[/quote]
I can answer that…it took me over 11 years to go from 180-220lbs, keeping my body fat relatively low.
That was my choice, I am taking no sides in this argument.
[quote]dancar wrote:
I understad what you’re all saying.
My concern with the CT article is that if the human body can only add .25 - .5 pound per week (plus glyceren storage), then it is impossible to know after one or two weeks if you have the amount of calories and the amount of exercise dialed in, because your weight from day to day (at least for me) flucuates within a three pound range according to how much water I’m holding, when I last ate and when I last pooped.
Therefore, it takes at least a month to be certain whether you’re adding muscle with no fat, or if you’re making no progress (or even losing muscle) due to eating only the calories needed to cover your activity level.
For that reason, it may be better to error on the side of eating too much. You can tell after a week or two if you’re gaining weight, and if you’re lifting right, you can be pretty sure you’re adding muscle along with whatever fat you’re getting. [/quote]
Good point.
Now, if you don’t mind… I’m leaving this thread to go bench. My body will let me add 2.5 pounds to the bar each week. Thus, in two years, I will be lifting 250 more pounds. After all, everything is linear, right?
Laters.
[quote]Dedicated wrote:
I agree that anyone truly into bodybuilding and who wants the above average, beyond 200 pound physique, and above average strength, should follow the ‘bulk’ of advice of Prof X. His guidance and advice for that is sound. The recent article by Thibs which sparked so much controversy was directed at people who have already attained this to a degree.
However, just like X pointed out some of the loudest on the board who decry anyone cutting there are a ton of guys who scream bulk, bulk,
bulk, and talk like experts, and as X pointed about the non bulk crowd out, if you look at their pics or stats they aren’t anywhere near the level they are giving advice on how to get to.
How many guys do you see hop on the bulk train and are quit to ridicule, but they haven’t broken the 200 pound barrier or their max bench is 250. I just like to see continuity from both sides and once a person has shown they have learned how to do it then they can dispense advice on getting there.
There are many members of this site who aren’t into that degree of bodybuilding or even if they want that type of build aren’t going to commit to the level of dedication to get there. They will be happy to attain a decent level of shape beyond the couch potato masses and maintain that. They will cherry pick the training advice and education here that suits their needs or that they are willing to follow.
Should we brow beat everyone into one camp of thought or trust people to use their heads when reading the training info and learn like we all have by then applying the info in practice and seeing what works for them.
D [/quote]
As usual, good fucking post and good points.
I’d rather look and move like Rich Franklin than Ronnie Coleman.