[quote]PGA wrote:
blazindave wrote:
Actually i have a question concerning this bulking thing. I thought that strength primarily came from your CNS. So how does bulking contribute to your CNS? I understand that more muscle = stronger but why would someone who bulks compared to someone who doesnt become stronger quicker if its high intensity low rep aimed at strength?
[quote]blazindave wrote:
Actually i have a question concerning this bulking thing. I thought that strength primarily came from your CNS. So how does bulking contribute to your CNS? I understand that more muscle = stronger but why would someone who bulks compared to someone who doesnt become stronger quicker if its high intensity low rep aimed at strength?[/quote]
this topic has been discussed before and while it may not be the most satisfying answer; theres just something about being fat or having some fat that makes you stronger.
in regards to this topic its irrelevant because were talking about the best means of putting on muscle-size. in order to efficiently put on the most muscle size you need a caloric surplus. and for gods sake it doesnt mean you have to turn into a balloon to do it. 12-14% is not fat. thats the percentage im usually at and i only hear positive comments about my body.
i said it earlier in this thread, show me one person whos gotten big without putting on a little fat. go look at every person in the rate my physique forum with a score above 6 and most likely somewhere in their post they talk about going up another X amount of pounds before they diet down again.
i said it earlier in this thread, show me one person whos gotten big without putting on a little fat. go look at every person in the rate my physique forum with a score above 6 and most likely somewhere in their post they talk about going up another X amount of pounds before they diet down again.[/quote]
There are some people who manage this (clean), but most people will find it quite difficult if possible at all. Part of being a stupid 15 year old is learning that you aren’t exceptional and the same rules which apply to everyone else apply to you as well. He will try his way regardless of what anyone says, strong odds are he fails, then after a few more years of stagnation and denial he will try the way everyone else uses… if he’s still lifting at all.
are you retarded? maybe you should read that article again before you try to use it to support your claims.
also you may want to read over some of the debates between Professor X and Thibs. Thibs is totally not against bulking, he just doesnt think people should literally get “fat” like you know above 15%. people need to stop associating the word “bulk” with eating doughnuts to put on size. when you bulk you just eat more of the same kind of foods youd eat when cutting. bulking has to do with increasing caloric intake not increasing shit food intake. fucking retards.
keep thinking you can get big without gaining fat dumbass. i cant wait to see you post again in 2 years weighing 1 or 2 pounds more if youre lucky.
[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
are you retarded? maybe you should read that article again before you try to use it to support your claims.[/quote]
I did. Maybe you are the one that needs to read the article?
Here is what Thibaudeau said-
�?� You can’t bully your body into adding more muscle simply by overeating.
�?� Being lean makes it easier to stay lean and to gain muscle through better nutrient partitioning. Getting fatter makes it easier to gain more fat and harder to lose it.
“average male body can manufacture between 0.25 and 0.5 pounds of dry muscle tissue per week”
“When overeating for a significant period of time, your body increases its number of fat cells. While you can make the existing fat cells “smaller” by emptying their fat content (fat loss), it’s impossible to remove fat cells without surgery.”
“By bulking up you’re actually reducing the amount of time per year where you can add muscle because you have to diet for a longer period of time to remove the gained fat.”
People on both sides of the argument believe that you have to increase caloric intake if you want to gain weight and currently aren’t. However, in a bulking phase, the goal is to put as much weight on as possible and not really worrying about the fat.
Okay, so you post that I’m not even done with puberty but then are going to say that 2 years from now I will be lucky to have gained 1 or 2 pounds? I’ll just inform you that over the past two years I have gained 50 pounds.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Most of the authors here barely look like they workout if they wear a tee-shirt with sleeves so how do they own the patent on experience?
The guy who looks like he lifts goes to the guy who doesn’t for training…
[/quote]
To be fair, AC never touted himself as a bb coach, his focus has always been on sport performance and he was a high level martial artist for years. He has also survived a recent near-death experience with cancer.
And to be honest, I dont think Bartl really looks like he lifts. Hes a triathlete, not a bodybuilder. Somewhere along the way, this site stopped making the distinction between bodybuilders and “people who work out sometimes”.
The issue is that people think they need to eat fuck all, but can still bulk. Bulking = eating more. Chances are you will lose your abdominal definition, boohoo have a cry.
I don’t understand why you guys that already know everything come here.
If you’re truly fat(20%+,love handles,pot belly etc) you can take a slight calorie deficit with adequate protien and you muscles will still respond to a challenge.
If you’re 15 and lean you need to take advantage of your hormones and try some extra food.
If you eat over maintenance calories you will put on weight, simple. If you train you might just put on some actual lean body mass, if you are not putting on lean body mass then you must be putting on fat, a little fat is okay, but if you use the excuse that I’m “bulking” thats why I can’t see my toes then you’ve “bulked” a little too much.
The whole bulk then cut, then bulk then cut, is like walking 2 steps forward and 1 step back, regardless how you rationalise this process.
Maintaining a realistic BF% and gradually increasing calories as your weight (LBM) increases is a much more effective and efficient, and healthier process, always walking forward and never taking steps backwards.
[quote]Mr. Strong wrote:
If you eat over maintenance calories you will put on weight, simple. If you train you might just put on some actual lean body mass, if you are not putting on lean body mass then you must be putting on fat, a little fat is okay, but if you use the excuse that I’m “bulking” thats why I can’t see my toes then you’ve “bulked” a little too much.
The whole bulk then cut, then bulk then cut, is like walking 2 steps forward and 1 step back, regardless how you rationalise this process.
Maintaining a realistic BF% and gradually increasing calories as your weight (LBM) increases is a much more effective and efficient, and healthier process, always walking forward and never taking steps backwards.
You pick.
[/quote]
Thank you, Mr. General Fitness. I am sure most here are discussing bodybuilding.
If your goals are average, then your advice is great.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Mr. Strong wrote:
If you eat over maintenance calories you will put on weight, simple. If you train you might just put on some actual lean body mass, if you are not putting on lean body mass then you must be putting on fat, a little fat is okay, but if you use the excuse that I’m “bulking” thats why I can’t see my toes then you’ve “bulked” a little too much.
The whole bulk then cut, then bulk then cut, is like walking 2 steps forward and 1 step back, regardless how you rationalise this process.
Maintaining a realistic BF% and gradually increasing calories as your weight (LBM) increases is a much more effective and efficient, and healthier process, always walking forward and never taking steps backwards.
You pick.
Thank you, Mr. General Fitness. I am sure most here are discussing bodybuilding.
If your goals are average, then your advice is great.
[/quote]
I understand your first point, but I think the second was a bit unnecessary.