The Body Weight Factor

Training
461

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
LOL strong estats

brb comparing CT Fletcher’s veiny 20 inch arms to your fatceps
brb 30 inch thighs at 30% bodyfat
brb “kingbeef I am concerned that you’re taking the FUN out of it.” but “Kingbeef is a trainer. I would expect him to approach his diet the way he does.”
brb here’s my monthly front double hunch pose, as always I’ve lost 10 lbs since then and am bigger
brb in real life normal people call me huge, but here I just don’t know why I get made fun of
brb weak in literally every exercise done on video because the altitude was so high and a nuclear bomb hit my knee in the war
brb telling people who disagree with you that they have mental problems[/quote]

lmao strong this, the nuclear bomb hit my knee brought the lulz.
To be honest I don’t even think X is “fat”, he’s just delusional about his bodyfat and never will diet down. My biggest gripe with him is how weak he was in those video’s, like Wendler says “big without strong is nothing”

462

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
LOL strong estats

brb comparing CT Fletcher’s veiny 20 inch arms to your fatceps
brb 30 inch thighs at 30% bodyfat
brb “kingbeef I am concerned that you’re taking the FUN out of it.” but “Kingbeef is a trainer. I would expect him to approach his diet the way he does.”
brb here’s my monthly front double hunch pose, as always I’ve lost 10 lbs since then and am bigger
brb in real life normal people call me huge, but here I just don’t know why I get made fun of
brb weak in literally every exercise done on video because the altitude was so high and a nuclear bomb hit my knee in the war
brb telling people who disagree with you that they have mental problems[/quote]

lmao strong this, the nuclear bomb hit my knee brought the lulz.
To be honest I don’t even think X is “fat”, he’s just delusional about his bodyfat and never will diet down. My biggest gripe with him is how weak he was in those video’s, like Wendler says “big without strong is nothing”
[/quote]

Not one thing we did in that vid aside from maybe the deadlifts and the sled was about all out strength training. It was about conditioning. If you even think I lifted all I could ever lift in any of those vids you are the one who is delusional.

463

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
LOL strong estats

brb comparing CT Fletcher’s veiny 20 inch arms to your fatceps
brb 30 inch thighs at 30% bodyfat
brb “kingbeef I am concerned that you’re taking the FUN out of it.” but “Kingbeef is a trainer. I would expect him to approach his diet the way he does.”
brb here’s my monthly front double hunch pose, as always I’ve lost 10 lbs since then and am bigger
brb in real life normal people call me huge, but here I just don’t know why I get made fun of
brb weak in literally every exercise done on video because the altitude was so high and a nuclear bomb hit my knee in the war
brb telling people who disagree with you that they have mental problems[/quote]

lmao strong this, the nuclear bomb hit my knee brought the lulz.
To be honest I don’t even think X is “fat”, he’s just delusional about his bodyfat and never will diet down. My biggest gripe with him is how weak he was in those video’s, like Wendler says “big without strong is nothing”
[/quote]

Not one thing we did in that vid aside from maybe the deadlifts and the sled was about all out strength training. It was about conditioning. If you even think I lifted all I could ever lift in any of those vids you are the one who is delusional.[/quote]

Lunge jokes aside, I’m supposed to believe you can deadlift significantly more than that when you looked like you were going to die during the sets?

464

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And LOL at ONE HUNDRED POUND gains comprised of mostly muscle!

Seriously, any time I read “80 to 100 lb” gains of mostly muscle (for naturals) I feel like I’m gonna crack up, seriously.[/quote]

ya like really

it’s over the 50 lbs of muscle limit(regardless of starting or ending weight) that is possible for a natty

can’t be true

465

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

Lunge jokes aside, I’m supposed to believe you can deadlift significantly more than that when you looked like you were going to die during the sets?[/quote]

You are supposed to be mature enough to understand that it doesn’t matter how strong you are, if you haven’t done an exercise at all in over ten years, you will NOT be using the most weight during your very first attempt at it again…which is what you saw on film.

You can bet I was moving more weight within the week after adding it back in until the motorcycle accident.

My conditioning was very poor when I went to CO. That is why I do way more conditioning work now. Again, the delusion seems to lie elsewhere.

466

I didnt see CT outlift him in CO

467

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And LOL at ONE HUNDRED POUND gains comprised of mostly muscle!

Seriously, any time I read “80 to 100 lb” gains of mostly muscle (for naturals) I feel like I’m gonna crack up, seriously.[/quote]

ya like really

it’s over the 50 lbs of muscle limit(regardless of starting or ending weight) that is possible for a natty

can’t be true

[/quote]

Not sure if 50 pounds is a “limit” but it’s what the best in the past 50 years or so have done so far.

468

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And LOL at ONE HUNDRED POUND gains comprised of mostly muscle!

Seriously, any time I read “80 to 100 lb” gains of mostly muscle (for naturals) I feel like I’m gonna crack up, seriously.[/quote]

ya like really

it’s over the 50 lbs of muscle limit(regardless of starting or ending weight) that is possible for a natty

can’t be true

[/quote]

Not sure if 50 pounds is a “limit” but it’s what the best in the past 50 years or so have done so far. [/quote]

130 at 20% bodyfat to 250 at 20% bodyfat

104 to 200 lean

or are you saying it’s impossible to do that?

even if you say 30%, you’d still be a bit over 50 (close to 70)

469

[quote]superdad4 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

How does that set up a strawman?

I just explained the basic concept of relative strength to you.

Actually, the one setting up strawmen is you. You’re trying to use the motivations of professional bodybuilders, who are ultimately the least concerned with how much they lift out of the entire lifting population, with those who want to be both big and strong.

This is about training efficiency. It is entirely possible to increase your numbers simply by gaining fat due to improved leverages, shortened ROM, etc. This, however, is not a sustainable solution. If person A and person B both start at 180lbs and increase their squat to 500 lbs, person a gaining 20 lbs and person b gaining 50, then it is entirely reasonable to conclude that person A is actually capabale of producing more force than person B. Where does person B go when it is time to increase their squat from 500 to 600? Do they gain another 50 lbs? Person A ends up gaining 20 more lbs to 220lbs and person B ends up at 280. Relying on weight gain to get stronger means you are going to get quickly outpaced by people who actually have their training and nutrition dialed in, as was the case with Det Azathoth in his thread in this forum, where he talks about making arguably the best progress of his life AFTER getting his nutrition in line and learning to train optimally rather than just relying on gaining 30lbs/year to get him stronger. In the short term, a shotgun approach to food can maske inefficient training, but in the long run, the one who trains and eats efficiently will come out on top.

470

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And LOL at ONE HUNDRED POUND gains comprised of mostly muscle!

Seriously, any time I read “80 to 100 lb” gains of mostly muscle (for naturals) I feel like I’m gonna crack up, seriously.[/quote]

ya like really

it’s over the 50 lbs of muscle limit(regardless of starting or ending weight) that is possible for a natty

can’t be true

[/quote]

Not sure if 50 pounds is a “limit” but it’s what the best in the past 50 years or so have done so far. [/quote]

130 at 20% bodyfat to 250 at 20% bodyfat

104 to 200 lean

or are you saying it’s impossible to do that?

even if you say 30%, you’d still be a bit over 50 (close to 70)

[/quote]

Dude, nothing’s impossible. For example - you have the head of a tiger - I bet a LOT of people told you you’d never accomplish that.

Who’s laughing now, eh??!

471

browndisaster is dropping LOL bombs everywhere lately

472

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And LOL at ONE HUNDRED POUND gains comprised of mostly muscle!

Seriously, any time I read “80 to 100 lb” gains of mostly muscle (for naturals) I feel like I’m gonna crack up, seriously.[/quote]

ya like really

it’s over the 50 lbs of muscle limit(regardless of starting or ending weight) that is possible for a natty

can’t be true

[/quote]

Not sure if 50 pounds is a “limit” but it’s what the best in the past 50 years or so have done so far. [/quote]

130 at 20% bodyfat to 250 at 20% bodyfat

104 to 200 lean

or are you saying it’s impossible to do that?

even if you say 30%, you’d still be a bit over 50 (close to 70)

[/quote]

When we’ve spoken about what the best have done and those who train diligently have done, we speak of people starting at normal bodyweights.

How tall is the example 130 pound male?

If someone has gained 80 to 100 pounds of mostly muscle, they have doubled what the best nattes in the past five decades have done.

473

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]superdad4 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

How does that set up a strawman?

I just explained the basic concept of relative strength to you.

Actually, the one setting up strawmen is you. You’re trying to use the motivations of professional bodybuilders, who are ultimately the least concerned with how much they lift out of the entire lifting population, with those who want to be both big and strong.

This is about training efficiency. It is entirely possible to increase your numbers simply by gaining fat due to improved leverages, shortened ROM, etc. This, however, is not a sustainable solution. If person A and person B both start at 180lbs and increase their squat to 500 lbs, person a gaining 20 lbs and person b gaining 50, then it is entirely reasonable to conclude that person A is actually capabale of producing more force than person B. Where does person B go when it is time to increase their squat from 500 to 600? Do they gain another 50 lbs? Person A ends up gaining 20 more lbs to 220lbs and person B ends up at 280. Relying on weight gain to get stronger means you are going to get quickly outpaced by people who actually have their training and nutrition dialed in, as was the case with Det Azathoth in his thread in this forum, where he talks about making arguably the best progress of his life AFTER getting his nutrition in line and learning to train optimally rather than just relying on gaining 30lbs/year to get him stronger. In the short term, a shotgun approach to food can maske inefficient training, but in the long run, the one who trains and eats efficiently will come out on top.[/quote]

High quality, informative post here.

474

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And LOL at ONE HUNDRED POUND gains comprised of mostly muscle!

Seriously, any time I read “80 to 100 lb” gains of mostly muscle (for naturals) I feel like I’m gonna crack up, seriously.[/quote]

ya like really

it’s over the 50 lbs of muscle limit(regardless of starting or ending weight) that is possible for a natty

can’t be true

[/quote]

Not sure if 50 pounds is a “limit” but it’s what the best in the past 50 years or so have done so far. [/quote]

130 at 20% bodyfat to 250 at 20% bodyfat

104 to 200 lean

or are you saying it’s impossible to do that?

even if you say 30%, you’d still be a bit over 50 (close to 70)

[/quote]

When we’ve spoken about what the best have done and those who train diligently have done, we speak of people starting at normal bodyweights.

How tall is the example 130 pound male?

If someone has gained 80 to 100 pounds of mostly muscle, they have doubled what the best nattes in the past five decades have done. [/quote]

lol, now bring up “normal” bodyweight and “height”

why do people bring up these overly general, vague, useless limits/numbers when they have all these preconditions?

If the 50 lb limit doesn’t apply to someone who starts at 130

or if it doesn’t apply to someone who is tall

why keep bringing it up? it just looks stupid

also, when talking about “best natties”, are you referring to people who compete, and lose muscle while cutting, or people who don’t mind being ~15-20% bodyfat and carrying extra muscle?

475

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

How does that set up a strawman?

I just explained the basic concept of relative strength to you.

Actually, the one setting up strawmen is you. You’re trying to use the motivations of professional bodybuilders, who are ultimately the least concerned with how much they lift out of the entire lifting population, with those who want to be both big and strong.

This is about training efficiency. It is entirely possible to increase your numbers simply by gaining fat due to improved leverages, shortened ROM, etc. This, however, is not a sustainable solution. If person A and person B both start at 180lbs and increase their squat to 500 lbs, person a gaining 20 lbs and person b gaining 50, then it is entirely reasonable to conclude that person A is actually capabale of producing more force than person B. Where does person B go when it is time to increase their squat from 500 to 600? Do they gain another 50 lbs? Person A ends up gaining 20 more lbs to 220lbs and person B ends up at 280. Relying on weight gain to get stronger means you are going to get quickly outpaced by people who actually have their training and nutrition dialed in, as was the case with Det Azathoth in his thread in this forum, where he talks about making arguably the best progress of his life AFTER getting his nutrition in line and learning to train optimally rather than just relying on gaining 30lbs/year to get him stronger. In the short term, a shotgun approach to food can maske inefficient training, but in the long run, the one who trains and eats efficiently will come out on top.[/quote]

but you are assuming the person eating more won’t put lbs on their squat faster than the person who isn’t

and assuming it is possible to know what perfect nutrition is

you’re either going to risk not gaining muscle as fast, or putting on some extra bodyfat… I’d prefer the second one

476

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And LOL at ONE HUNDRED POUND gains comprised of mostly muscle!

Seriously, any time I read “80 to 100 lb” gains of mostly muscle (for naturals) I feel like I’m gonna crack up, seriously.[/quote]

ya like really

it’s over the 50 lbs of muscle limit(regardless of starting or ending weight) that is possible for a natty

can’t be true

[/quote]

Not sure if 50 pounds is a “limit” but it’s what the best in the past 50 years or so have done so far. [/quote]

130 at 20% bodyfat to 250 at 20% bodyfat

104 to 200 lean

or are you saying it’s impossible to do that?

even if you say 30%, you’d still be a bit over 50 (close to 70)

[/quote]

When we’ve spoken about what the best have done and those who train diligently have done, we speak of people starting at normal bodyweights.

How tall is the example 130 pound male?

If someone has gained 80 to 100 pounds of mostly muscle, they have doubled what the best nattes in the past five decades have done. [/quote]

lol, now bring up “normal” bodyweight and “height”

why do people bring up these overly general, vague, useless limits/numbers when they have all these preconditions?

If the 50 lb limit doesn’t apply to someone who starts at 130

or if it doesn’t apply to someone who is tall

why keep bringing it up? it just looks stupid

also, when talking about “best natties”, are you referring to people who compete, and lose muscle while cutting, or people who don’t mind being ~15-20% bodyfat and carrying extra muscle?

[/quote]

This topic has been discussed so many places on this site, I think dozens of times.

We speak of limits, like other thing, for the sake of it. However, no one here is limiting anyone else. As I’ve said, the only way to limit someone from attending a gym is through privation and kidnapping and holding them hostage or somehow controlling their gym activities through force (does anyone know how to do this?).

I think we’ve generally referred to both competitors, athletes, and lifters.

We’ve also mentioned that like many fields, there are OUTLIERS, freaks, unusually gifted people.

I don’t recall people mentioning the 50 pound gain (you refer to it as limit) applying to people’s different heights, but it’s certainly reasonable to say people with larger frames will gain more muscle.

I don’t recall people talking about preconditions other than natural versus assisted in regard to this topic.

Here’s the kicker: I might be wrong! But I have my beliefs. And I generalize (a lot!).

477

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
[

and assuming it is possible to know what perfect nutrition is

[/quote]

PLEASE: explain.

Edit: I actually take this post back. I see where you were going with it.

478

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
[

and assuming it is possible to know what perfect nutrition is

[/quote]

PLEASE: explain. [/quote]

i don’t know how you would figure out how to build muscle and no bodyfat at all… you’d be cutting it very close if you were doing that

i don’t think there is anything sloppy or reckless about gaining .5-1 lb a week if it offers consistent gains on your lifts

479

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And LOL at ONE HUNDRED POUND gains comprised of mostly muscle!

Seriously, any time I read “80 to 100 lb” gains of mostly muscle (for naturals) I feel like I’m gonna crack up, seriously.[/quote]

ya like really

it’s over the 50 lbs of muscle limit(regardless of starting or ending weight) that is possible for a natty

can’t be true

[/quote]

Not sure if 50 pounds is a “limit” but it’s what the best in the past 50 years or so have done so far. [/quote]

130 at 20% bodyfat to 250 at 20% bodyfat

104 to 200 lean

or are you saying it’s impossible to do that?

even if you say 30%, you’d still be a bit over 50 (close to 70)

[/quote]

Dude, nothing’s impossible. For example - you have the head of a tiger - I bet a LOT of people told you you’d never accomplish that.

Who’s laughing now, eh??! [/quote]

lol, apparently it weirds people out when I switch heads

480

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

This topic has been discussed so many places on this site, I think dozens of times.

We speak of limits, like other thing, for the sake of it. However, no one here is limiting anyone else.[/quote]

They aren’t? It was just stated that it can’t be done. If people are doing it, why mention the “limit” if it ONLY applies to all of these preconditions?

But…we don’t hear anything about you possibly being wrong here. You just give out this limit all of the time like it is truth for all.