??? we don’t KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow. That’s why it’s impossible and frankly stupid to count calories.
let’s be real, isn’t going on a big bulk and not tracking calories a method for the lazy? I track my macros, but that never holds me back from eating extra when my training necessitates it.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
??? we don’t KNOW the sun will rise tomorrow. That’s why it’s impossible and frankly stupid to count calories.
let’s be real, isn’t going on a big bulk and not tracking calories a method for the lazy? I track my macros, but that never holds me back from eating extra when my training necessitates it.[/quote]
Yeah, but how are you gonna know how much more you need? There’s no way to know that.
Only way is to indiscriminately stuff your face. This way you know you’re getting enough.
Dear Diary,
I get the concept that if you never eat enough, you’ll never get big enough & this problem stops a lot of overanalysis bros from getting far. However, that’s noob shit. Who cares about the best way to lose your dieting and training virginity? I’d rather read about how guys like bluecollartrain and supersaiyan became more and more awesome. To simply say you can’t plan with precision, is really a defeatist and loser attitude. I don’t want to pass my prime and only have some swole instagram pics to show for it. I’d rather put the extra effort in and have wild success and be truly competitive with my former self and others.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajhb.1310060509/abstract
If sumo wrestler have a higher FFM than bodybuilders and one could endlessly add lean body mass while bulking I could see a reason why to disregard fat gains that come with muscle gains in pursuit for the biggest version of oneself someday at a body fat that they are comfortable at that they would diet down to later.
However take the sumo wrestler with the highest FFM to height ratio and diet him down (including bodybuilding training) to 11% body fat like the average bodyfat of the bodybuilders in the abstract and I would doubt he would be as muscular for his height as any of them. Sure he may have started out with more muscle than the bodybuilders but he would have ended up with less once he was near their bodyfat although still quite a bit more muscular than the average person.
I think there is something to be said by many ( stu, shelby, thibs, zraw, meadows, etc…) who are advocating to keep bulking closer to the body fat one wants to be as a goal than letting ones body weight get uncomfortably high as if that would get one to their goals more optimally.
Shelby’s guidelines for someone who wants to be bigger at around 10% is to bulk at a reasonable rate from 10 to 15% bodyfat and start over once one reaches 15% bodyfat. No one is saying to drastically reduce ones calories just because ones abs start to blur as one went from 10 to 11% bodyfat during the bulking process. Perfect Body Fat Percentage
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
To simply say you can’t plan with precision, is really a defeatist and loser attitude. [/quote]
Yeah, I don’t quite understand this. I like to think that I’ve got a damn good handle on nutritional approaches, and physique adjustment, but Brick’s an RD, who not only does this for people all day long, but can quote the top people in the field the way some people quote stats of their favorite athletes. He’s made some excellent points in recent threads, not sure why it’s being met with such resistance.
Sure, everyone has their own unique physiology, and how their body reacts to certain dietary approaches and breakdowns will always be something that has to be experienced to be truly verified, BUT by this point, we know more than enough to make very educated guesstimates based on specific variables and parameters. After that, it’s simply an intelligent matter of weekly assessment and recalibration if needed. Individuals constantly throwing out the notion that we can never know with 100% accuracy because of hormonal shifts and other daily stresses as an excuse to not give a basic approach simply comes across as a cop out.
(I personally don’t care one way or another, but it’s really not rocket science to lay out basic how-tos for a beginner trainer)
S
This thread delivered
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
This thread delivered[/quote]
I feel it hasnt’ reached it’s full potential, a brofessor x thread that hasn’t even hit 20 pages? That’s like only eating 5000 calories on a bulk, holding back from your potential.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
To simply say you can’t plan with precision, is really a defeatist and loser attitude. [/quote]
Yeah, I don’t quite understand this. I like to think that I’ve got a damn good handle on nutritional approaches, and physique adjustment, but Brick’s an RD, who not only does this for people all day long, but can quote the top people in the field the way some people quote stats of their favorite athletes. He’s made some excellent points in recent threads, not sure why it’s being met with such resistance.
Sure, everyone has their own unique physiology, and how their body reacts to certain dietary approaches and breakdowns will always be something that has to be experienced to be truly verified, BUT by this point, we know more than enough to make very educated guesstimates based on specific variables and parameters. After that, it’s simply an intelligent matter of weekly assessment and recalibration if needed. Individuals constantly throwing out the notion that we can never know with 100% accuracy because of hormonal shifts and other daily stresses as an excuse to not give a basic approach simply comes across as a cop out.
(I personally don’t care one way or another, but it’s really not rocket science to lay out basic how-tos for a beginner trainer)
S
[/quote]
Good post. And thank you VERY MUCH for the compliment. It means a lot coming from someone like you.
I’m not sure if this is the place to post this, but it seems appropriate. I am not a big fan of guys telling everyone how much weight they can lift on the internet, but what really irks me is when a guy brags about how he lifted X pounds at a bodyweight of only Y. This is said like being only Y weight is a badge of honor. Now I suppose if you are a competitive weightlifter this is a good thing. But otherwise wouldn’t it be much better to lift 2X pounds at a bodyweight of Y + 20? I mean, aren’t we lifting to bet stronger AND bigger? At least I am.
[quote]superdad4 wrote:
I’m not sure if this is the place to post this, but it seems appropriate. I am not a big fan of guys telling everyone how much weight they can lift on the internet, but what really irks me is when a guy brags about how he lifted X pounds at a bodyweight of only Y. This is said like being only Y weight is a badge of honor. Now I suppose if you are a competitive weightlifter this is a good thing. But otherwise wouldn’t it be much better to lift 2X pounds at a bodyweight of Y + 20? I mean, aren’t we lifting to bet stronger AND bigger? At least I am.[/quote]
People have different preferences and goals, right?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]superdad4 wrote:
I’m not sure if this is the place to post this, but it seems appropriate. I am not a big fan of guys telling everyone how much weight they can lift on the internet, but what really irks me is when a guy brags about how he lifted X pounds at a bodyweight of only Y. This is said like being only Y weight is a badge of honor. Now I suppose if you are a competitive weightlifter this is a good thing. But otherwise wouldn’t it be much better to lift 2X pounds at a bodyweight of Y + 20? I mean, aren’t we lifting to bet stronger AND bigger? At least I am.[/quote]
People have different preferences and goals, right?
Sure, but this is Testosterone a bodybuilding site, right? I guess I am just king of put off by what I see as people being critical of a guy’s strength if he is big. I’ve just noticed that the smaller a guy is, the more likely he is to include his bodyweight when mentioning his lifts.
[quote]superdad4 wrote:
I’m not sure if this is the place to post this, but it seems appropriate. I am not a big fan of guys telling everyone how much weight they can lift on the internet, but what really irks me is when a guy brags about how he lifted X pounds at a bodyweight of only Y. This is said like being only Y weight is a badge of honor. Now I suppose if you are a competitive weightlifter this is a good thing. But otherwise wouldn’t it be much better to lift 2X pounds at a bodyweight of Y + 20? I mean, aren’t we lifting to bet stronger AND bigger? At least I am.[/quote]
Being able to squat 500 at 200 lbs is much more impressive than being able to do so at 280 lbs. If i added 20 lbs but my lifts didn’t go up, I wouldn’t count that as a positive thing unless I was absolutely certain that NONE of that was fat, which without adding at least some strength, is extremely unlikely.
Bodyweight is only tangential to being the sort of big and strong that most on this site desire.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]superdad4 wrote:
I’m not sure if this is the place to post this, but it seems appropriate. I am not a big fan of guys telling everyone how much weight they can lift on the internet, but what really irks me is when a guy brags about how he lifted X pounds at a bodyweight of only Y. This is said like being only Y weight is a badge of honor. Now I suppose if you are a competitive weightlifter this is a good thing. But otherwise wouldn’t it be much better to lift 2X pounds at a bodyweight of Y + 20? I mean, aren’t we lifting to bet stronger AND bigger? At least I am.[/quote]
Being able to squat 500 at 200 lbs is much more impressive than being able to do so at 280 lbs. If i added 20 lbs but my lifts didn’t go up, I wouldn’t count that as a positive thing unless I was absolutely certain that NONE of that was fat, which without adding at least some strength, is extremely unlikely.
Bodyweight is only tangential to being the sort of big and strong that most on this site desire.[/quote]
Well, this is not really refuting anything I stated. It is creating a strawman argument to say that it is ok to be heavier and not stronger. My point is more along the lines of that it is better to be the Superheavyweight champion than to be the featherweight champion. Everyone, of course, is entitled to their own opinions, but personally I am more impressed with the Mr. Olympia than the 202 (212?) Mr. Olympia. I guess it just makes me cringe when I hear comments like, "he lifts great for his size . Kind of like saying she throws great for a girl. I didn’t really come hear to start up a war, I just want to be the biggest, strongest guy in the room with no qualifiers. That’s all.
So, I guess this all does really boil down to “yeah, but his penis looks bigger because he’s smaller” …
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Being able to squat 500 at 200 lbs is much more impressive than being able to do so at 280 lbs. [/quote]
Maybe. But 500 lbs is 500 lbs. Still a lot of weight whether you’re 200 or 300.
I know, I know… Not impressed.
“Yeah, well, his penis is relatively bigger because he’s smaller”
Daddy Stronghold in the future:
Daughter: "Daddy, Daddy! I squatted 315 today!!
Daddy Stronghold: “Pffft. It would have been much more impressive if you were 30 lbs lighter”
This boxed perspective thinking is so cliche:
Dude squats 500 lbs
Normal people: “WOW”
Chicks: “Does he have a good job?”
Oly Lifters: “Pfft. Didn’t even jerk it”
Crossfitters: “Pfft. He only did it once.”
Powerlifters: “Pfft. What’s his weight-to-lift ratio?”
Bodybuilders: “Pfft. Can’t even see his abs.”
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Being able to squat 500 at 200 lbs is much more impressive than being able to do so at 280 lbs. [/quote]
Maybe. But 500 lbs is 500 lbs. Still a lot of weight whether you’re 200 or 300.
I know, I know… Not impressed.
“Yeah, well, his penis is relatively bigger because he’s smaller”
Daddy Stronghold in the future:
Daughter: "Daddy, Daddy! I squatted 315 today!!
Daddy Stronghold: “Pffft. It would have been much more impressive if you were 30 lbs lighter”
This boxed perspective thinking is so cliche:
Dude squats 500 lbs
Normal people: “WOW”
Chicks: “Does he have a good job?”
Oly Lifters: “Pfft. Didn’t even jerk it”
Crossfitters: “Pfft. He only did it once.”
Powerlifters: “Pfft. What’s his weight-to-lift ratio?”
Bodybuilders: “Pfft. Can’t even see his abs.”
[/quote]
Christ that was funny!
Here are some more responses:
Dude puts up a shit ton of weight:
Normal people: “How old is this guy? What’s he guy doing with his life?”
Crossfitters: “Yeah, but, like, that’s all he can do. Look, the guy can’t even walk right. Us, we lift, jump, run, sprint–we can do a little bit of everything. I don’t wanna just be able to waddle to a bar or plop myself on a bench and lift. And look at this guy…”
Bodybuilders: “Yeah, but look at this guy…”
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
To simply say you can’t plan with precision, is really a defeatist and loser attitude. [/quote]
Yeah, I don’t quite understand this. I like to think that I’ve got a damn good handle on nutritional approaches, and physique adjustment, but Brick’s an RD, who not only does this for people all day long, but can quote the top people in the field the way some people quote stats of their favorite athletes. He’s made some excellent points in recent threads, not sure why it’s being met with such resistance. [/quote]
Resistance? As if there is no “resistance” to what I am writing? Bias?
No one is saying that since you can’t plan precision, go ahead and eat cake…which seems to be the “either or” mind set I am debating with.
What IS being said is that to even come close to really understanding your own body to meet its needs with any sort of precision takes years of learning how your own body responds to certain foods and training strategies.
I really don’t care whether someone writes diets for people for a living, to act as if this trial and error phase is of so little importance to a newb is a little strange.
For a SEDENTARY person, it is very easy to simply look at very blatant objective factors like height, weight and age. You can NOT simply use those criteria when dealing with someone with an all out goal of literally adding another 100lbs of body weight with most of it being muscle.
[quote]
BUT by this point, we know more than enough to make very educated guesstimates based on specific variables and parameters. [/quote]
The point againn is that some of you don’t even seem to understand all of the variables. If you drive in heavy traffic to work 5 times this week, your body will be effected in some way. These types of variables can NOT be totally accounted for aside from someone who has literally LIVED AND TRAINED in that body for years to understand what it needs at certain times.
I am reaching the ability to do that now…but there is no way I needed a sniper rifle as a newb.
I needed a sawed off shot gun until I met the most basic criteria for long term success…CONSISTENCY and DEDICATION.
Who said someone should NOT be given a basic approach? Seriously. Who said that here?
What was said is that people throwing a specific template at everyone without taking GENETICS AND METABOLISM and RESULTS TO THAT POINT into account are not looking at the entire picture.
I mean, if you don’t even understand the counter argument, how can you claim you are against it?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Being able to squat 500 at 200 lbs is much more impressive than being able to do so at 280 lbs. [/quote]
Maybe. But 500 lbs is 500 lbs. Still a lot of weight whether you’re 200 or 300.
I know, I know… Not impressed.
“Yeah, well, his penis is relatively bigger because he’s smaller”
Daddy Stronghold in the future:
Daughter: "Daddy, Daddy! I squatted 315 today!!
Daddy Stronghold: “Pffft. It would have been much more impressive if you were 30 lbs lighter”
This boxed perspective thinking is so cliche:
Dude squats 500 lbs
Normal people: “WOW”
Chicks: “Does he have a good job?”
Oly Lifters: “Pfft. Didn’t even jerk it”
Crossfitters: “Pfft. He only did it once.”
Powerlifters: “Pfft. What’s his weight-to-lift ratio?”
Bodybuilders: “Pfft. Can’t even see his abs.”
[/quote]
Brilliant.
[quote]zraw wrote:
For camp 1 it is easy to see where they would draw the line of “optimal muscle gain”. They would obviously try to keep cals as close as possible to the "max needed for no fat gains/minimal fat gains
For camp 2 though, given that not all cals are used for muscle building from the get go… where do you draw the line of “muscle gains are maxed”… or would there be no “max” for that group…?[/quote]
If I am gaining too much body fat, I cut back on carbs or cals a bit.
What is so hard to understand.
And again, many of us have lives outside of the gym.
If someone is in a growth phase and really seeing gains in strength in the gym, are you saying they should IGNORE the fact that they are making progress and base whether they diet right now ONLY on their body fat levels if they got a little too high?
Please answer this professionally. Let me know if you need more explanation.
I want to see if you can carry on a discussion without the insults.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
For camp 1 it is easy to see where they would draw the line of “optimal muscle gain”. They would obviously try to keep cals as close as possible to the "max needed for no fat gains/minimal fat gains
For camp 2 though, given that not all cals are used for muscle building from the get go… where do you draw the line of “muscle gains are maxed”… or would there be no “max” for that group…?[/quote]
If I am gaining too much body fat, I cut back on carbs or cals a bit.
What is so hard to understand.
And again, many of us have lives outside of the gym.
If someone is in a growth phase and really seeing gains in strength in the gym, are you saying they should IGNORE the fact that they are making progress and base whether they diet right now ONLY on their body fat levels if they got a little too high?
Please answer this professionally. Let me know if you need more explanation.
I want to see if you can carry on a discussion without the insults.[/quote]
The last two lines are out of place as the post you responded to was professional AND civilised. It also did not imply anything so im not sure why you think something here is “hard for me to understand”.
I’ll just pretend you didnt write those lines
Moving on
I am not saying that one should ignore progress, not at all. What I am asking (not implying anything) is how do you “draw the line”. If your weight keeps going up your strenght should theorically go up too. At what point do you decide “ok these fat gains are too high and not needed”
Personal preference? But then if its a personal preference how can you be sure that, lowering cals a bit to prevent “too much” fat gains wont also affect the muscle gains
Not sure if how im wording it is making sense…? Like… maybe that extra 2lbs of fat that you decided to “not accept” wouldve brought an extra .4lbs of muscle… maybe that extra 5lbs of fat that someone else doesnt accept wouldve brought an extra .75lbs of muscle… etc etc
How can you decided that this extra fat gain is NOT needed in order to make the most progress?