Heh.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What people don’t get is some of these guys are actually taking it to this level.
It’s real harassment at that point…and this site shouldn’t tolerate it.
[/quote]
Aww poor fella 
posting this so you don’t continue to suffer in silence
I’m sure people are tired of this, so I’ll be the bigger man (this is funny in two ways) and stop
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Majin wrote:
Stuffing your face all day leads to 20" blubber flaps and no more muscle built than a guy simply making sure to eat above maintenance and adding as needed. There’s no scientific OR in the trenches counter to that. Because you would need a control group, and there just ain’t none. For all we know, the “real big” guy would have gained the same amount of muscle without pigging out on 4 McD’s sandwiches at a time (which you so praised and which took a big pain in the ass to lose later).
It’s like your every damn thread is a backhanded way of justifying you staying 70’s big for a decade. Just get lean and then take everyone down with your RESULTS. Instead of postulating on shit that’s purely in the speculation realm.[/quote]
What is strange is that even if I avoid using myself as any example, you will still try to focus the discussion on me and your perception of my results.
This whole paragraph is full of nonsense. I don’t even eat at Mc Donald’s so any idea that I told you or anyone else to eat four sandwiches is actually pretty hilarious.[/quote]
What’s hillarious is that after you or someone else quoted Tate saying that about 4 McD’s sandwiches in one sitting(among others), you praised it as genius etc. I only mentioned your results because you offer so little to back up your theories that the only thing remaining is to see if you live up to them yourself.
[quote]
It’s a good thing no one wrote anything here about stuffing faces.
No one mentioned 20" “blubber flaps” either.
I mean, seriously, guy, do you think the insults make you look hard or something over the internet? This is making you appear badass?[/quote]
That’s sweet, but I wasn’t talking about you. Just in general. I don’t even know your measurements. I see a lot of people bulking up pretty hard and they look like shit. I don’t see them gaining any level of extreme muscularity that would surpass those who stay at 12% or so. They’re just gaining fat or keeping the same level of both. There are guys that I went to two gyms with in the past 7 years, who look exactly the same. There’s muscle underneath, but there’s no way to tell if any progress has been made.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
28 inch ties![/quote]
hardly extreme
she measured 30 inches here…again no macro counting, just eats when emotional
[quote]jeremielemauvais wrote:
??? He didn’t say YOU have 20 inch burger flaps, he said indiscriminate eating would lead to 20 inch burger flaps. This isn’t one of your “fans” from the peanut gallery.
Look, most people here accept that you look “jacked” (pro-size) from the front, sport less size but are decently built in the back for the most part (barring upper traps that are pro-size and non existent rear delts), BUT sport the leg size of someone who can barely squat three plates for reps AND (unfortunately) have the posterior chain strength of a frat boy who’s spent a year-ish in the gym - unless all thats changed in the three year since the video was made.
But then thats your goal isn’t it??? to look jacked in your “changing stations on the iPod pose” and fill out an XXL without being obese and little else?
I do agree that has little to do with your message here though. It will come up again and again however and there’s little you can do to quell it besides show that you are able to hold on to your size while dieting down. To be perfectly honest, that does not seem to be the case. Your “recomp” isn’t working, even from your trademark pics.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Majin wrote:
Stuffing your face all day leads to 20" blubber flaps and no more muscle built than a guy simply making sure to eat above maintenance and adding as needed. There’s no scientific OR in the trenches counter to that. Because you would need a control group, and there just ain’t none. For all we know, the “real big” guy would have gained the same amount of muscle without pigging out on 4 McD’s sandwiches at a time (which you so praised and which took a big pain in the ass to lose later).
It’s like your every damn thread is a backhanded way of justifying you staying 70’s big for a decade. Just get lean and then take everyone down with your RESULTS. Instead of postulating on shit that’s purely in the speculation realm.[/quote]
What is strange is that even if I avoid using myself as any example, you will still try to focus the discussion on me and your perception of my results.
This whole paragraph is full of nonsense. I don’t even eat at Mc Donald’s so any idea that I told you or anyone else to eat four sandwiches is actually pretty hilarious.
If I do want a hamburger, it will probably be at Whataburger.
It’s a good thing no one wrote anything here about stuffing faces.
No one mentioned 20" “blubber flaps” either.
I mean, seriously, guy, do you think the insults make you look hard or something over the internet? This is making you appear badass?
I had 18" arms within the first three years of training. I had arms that size in that pic of me from 2001 kneeling in my parent’s backyard.
You aren’t making me feel bad about my progress. Your insults aren’t making me feel like I wasted my time in the gym.
Also, you won’t see me return the favor by insulting your progress.
Just let us all know what you consider “extreme development” in general measurements if you have so much of a problem with my own opinion.[/quote]
[/quote]
prof X is not PRO sized, but he is big. also yes i find it funny that hes achievements are exactly what he uses to define extreme development and good genetics. i also happen to believe that profX would look alot less “extreme” in his own words, where he to diet down to a respectable bodyfat (10-12%). fuck even getting down to 13-14% would probably put him in the low 230’s.
[quote]pwolves17 wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
habits and getting in the meals don’t change from either approach. [/quote]
I would consider that to be incorrect. I would put money on the guy who makes his eating a regular activity will see more long term progress and less lay offs from random life events than someone who “eats whenever they feel like it”…at least as it concerns the beginner.
If you disagree, fine.
Prove me wrong by getting really big yet “eating whenever you feel like it” long term.
[quote]
If your plan is to hit 6 good meals, or hit your macros, but you go to bed without doing that, then that is inconsistency and lack of a making it a habit. You’re capslocksing things that aren’t being argued.
If someone doesn’t follow their diet consistently, then yes that’s an issue. Great illuminating point, thanks guru.[/quote]
Hey, once again, if you see no value here, excuse yourself. I’m not calling myself a “guru”.
I’m calling myself someone who got really big in spite of not having bodybuilding as my main priority in life…and just discussing how you do that.
Take it or leave it.
Apparently…you have much trouble just leaving it.[/quote]
I have trouble leaving it? I’m putting my viewpoint out there.
You may think you’re a big anonymous tough guy, but you’re not. If you want to have a discussion, then respond to my posts made and DO NOT quote stuff I’ve never said. You’ve done this before. I don’t care if you lie about yourself, but do not lie about me.
If, like you believe, we’re haters and want to knock you down a peg at any chance we get, we would. It would take only minutes to bomb your dental practice with negative reviews online, but we have integrity and would never do that, right? Please, have some integrity and don’t post libel related to me again.[/quote]
Come on man, how would you even think of the idea of posting negative reviews of X’s dental practice? You take this site way too seriously if the idea of messing with someone’s real life would even cross your mind as a result of an argument over food[/quote]
Agreed, I don’t see what stirred that “libel” talk though lol. I assume that was a joke though (i hope)
In this thread, I believe this is what the OP is saying : “yes, Macros/protein intake matter above all else, but telling beginners that macros matter beyond anything else will not yield coontinuous progression since beginners need to see some dramatic strength gains for the burst of motivation that will lead them to taking this hobby seriously long term. In the OPs case, simply focusing on eating more frequently allowed him to get in more protein, more calories etc to establish a solid base relatively quickly to get him to the point where he could get the same or better results by paying more attention to macros and less/no attention to meal frequency.”
When I hired Hernon for my first cut 6 or so years back, he put me on a strict 6 meal plan for the first few months and then chopped me down to “eat whenever hungry” over a year or so. By that time, I had established proper eating patterns etc. So yeah, what he’s saying is not completely off base here.
Facts:
- You need a caloric surplus to put on muscle
- You need a nutrient surplus to put on muscle
- If you have to much caloric/nutrient surplus, you get fat and nutrients can go to waste and/or stored in fat
- Everyone’s caloric and nutrient surplus needs are different
- Everyone’s tolerance of eating a surplus of food in a certain number of sittings differ. There is no right or wrong answer. There may be a more efficent answer, but even that differs between people. Some people can do it in 1 or 2 sitting and peri-workout. Some people can eat 3 large meals and a few snacks. Some people need to eat 10 giant meals a day. Whatever.
Seems to me there will never be an end to the argument since there is no holy grail of an answer. I think we would all do newbies a better justice by teaching them how to figure out their own bodies by keeping appropriate records, how to track changes and compare results, and most of all, being patient. I know I wish I had all of that when I started and I wouldn’t have wasted 10 years of my life trying every new supplement or new eaitng method or diet craze out there.
[quote]Majin wrote:
What’s hillarious is that after you or someone else quoted Tate saying that about 4 McD’s sandwiches in one sitting(among others), you praised it as genius etc. I only mentioned your results because you offer so little to back up your theories that the only thing remaining is to see if you live up to them yourself.[/quote]
This entire paragraph is nonsensical. I quoted an entire discussion with Dave Tate…so you now think I believe every single word that he does because I said he is a genius?
How does that make sense to anyone?
I agree with much of what he has to say with how to get really big. He would probably agree with what I am writing here also from what I have seen. If you want to know specifics, you ask them…you don’t blame some specific quote about Mc Donald’s on someone else and then go on a rant about fat people in your gym.
What are you talking about here? I have posted my results since day one on this site back when I was only weighing about 210lbs and was still in school. By that time I already had arms OVER 18" and looked big. Those pictures have been posted for a decade on this site since that first double biceps pose I put up kneeling in my parent’s backyard.
What questions do you have about my results and how does that relate to this discussion directly?
“Bulking up” doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with being above 12% body fat. Bulking up has NOTHING to do with gaining a bunch of body fat on purpose. You seem confused.
[quote]Captain Needa wrote:
Question regarding the Insulin insensitivity topic:
TC chimed in early the thread (sort of a long time ago now) about his take on meal frequency how he correlates this to insulin insensitivity.
(link here: A New Way to Eat - Part 1 , 6 meals a day will ultimately muck up your insulin sensitivity, and that be bad news.)
Professor X stated that there have been no studies done that corroborate this stance. From searching myself I think that he is correct.
However, let me throw the question out there: Has anyone run into any studies on this topic?
Diabetes (type 2) does run in my family and as I am getting older I am interested in this topic. Not fearful as I am in good health but definitely would like to know if anyone has found any studies. Before TC posted I was eating fairly constantly throughout the day, due to the conventional wisdom of keeping my metabolism going. Since he posted I have, as an experiment, grouped my meals into 4 eating sessions, with no change to calories or macros. I feel no different with either eating method.
I did a search myself but could not find anything directly addressing the question. There were some proponents of TC’s idea in the IF camp (example: Meal Frequency ) and a few articles addressing insulin insensitivity on PubMed but nothing directly related.
I suppose the next thing for me to do to explore this topic is to run my meal timing experiment over a few weeks (each way) while taking daily blood glucose readings. I really don’t look forward to this so was hoping someone else out here has either done that already or has a link to some more related studies.
Cheers,
Cpt Needa [/quote]
I am not aware of any studies that apply specifically to what you are asking, but based on what we do know, the grouping of meals into specific sessions probably won’t show much if any difference…because you are still keeping the body fed throughout the day and there are no long term periods of “fasting”…which is the main point I was making.
Someone going long periods without food (like 8 hours or more) may not see the same type of muscular growth long term as someone who provides more nutrients throughout the day. That is what I am proposing.
Thank you for responding.
I should add that when Dave Tate was on his mystical 10,000+ calorie/a day bulk, he was also almost certainly using AAS. It doesn’t matter to me, and I think if you want to be competitive as a powerlifter at that caliber, you are definitely going to be doing so. But obviously, eating that much as a natural is really not going to get you anywhere good, unless you are purely concerned with scale weight. I originally brought it up just as a humerous anecdote about extreme diets.
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
I should add that when Dave Tate was on his mystical 10,000+ calorie/a day bulk, he was also almost certainly using AAS. It doesn’t matter to me, and I think if you want to be competitive as a powerlifter at that caliber, you are definitely going to be doing so. But obviously, eating that much as a natural is really not going to get you anywhere good, unless you are purely concerned with scale weight. I originally brought it up just as a humerous anecdote about extreme diets.[/quote]
One important point to make…anyone looking at a number like that and thinking they should follow the NUMBER is missing the point of what he was saying.
Dave Tate never told any newb to eat 10,000calories…ever. He has never told anyone to eat 10,000calories in a day.
Steroids do not change the basics of what he is discussing. It is assumed that the person has at least decent genetics for this.
He was not directing his statements at the guy who lifts for 20 years and never gets arms over 16".
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
I should add that when Dave Tate was on his mystical 10,000+ calorie/a day bulk, he was also almost certainly using AAS. It doesn’t matter to me, and I think if you want to be competitive as a powerlifter at that caliber, you are definitely going to be doing so. But obviously, eating that much as a natural is really not going to get you anywhere good, unless you are purely concerned with scale weight. I originally brought it up just as a humerous anecdote about extreme diets.[/quote]
Something else that usually gets left out of that story is that, along with everything else suggested, part of the program was every 1-2 hours you were supposed to eat 2 hershey chocolate bars. The idea was, 1, since it was a pure chocolate bar, you could just put it in your mouth and let it melt if you were too full to eat any more, allowing you to get in more calories, and secondly to keep your insulin spiked constantly through out the day. Apparently, the man with this secret was J M Blakely.
The original article about it (The Crown and the Ring) is in Gym Talk 3.
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
and secondly to keep your insulin spiked constantly through out the day. Apparently, the man with this secret was J M Blakely. [/quote]
…Key point…that actually worked apparently.
You just don’t get lean that way.
The rest of what gets left out is how hard he was training WHILE doing that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Steroids do not change the basics of what he is discussing. It is assumed that the person has at least decent genetics for this.[/quote]
I’m not sure if it was the same article, but he has one on here where he basically explains that neither his bulking nor cutting routines are all that enjoyable. The takeaway, to my mind, is that you always have to put work in whether bulking or cutting - diet is always a factor and must be given its proper due.
What I got out of dave’s anecdote here is that sometimes you have to do insane things to achieve great results (of course, if anyone remembers what Dave looked like in his SHW days, they would know he had quite a bit of fat on him in spite of his gear). I don’t think anyone is blindly recommending a 10,000 calorie diet - not even the author of the article. I’m just pointing out to people, generally, that this is not a sensible # for a natural trainee, even if it were sensible for others. So I guess we’re in agreement.
But, I’m going to have to disagree with your comment quoted above. I have never heard anyone claim, until now, that steroids do not change how much you can/should be eating. This is well known. If you are on a pro-level cycle, you can and you must eat more to fuel the extra growth. It should be fairly obvious. Even with insane genetics, you will get fat on 10-12k cals/day, unless you are literally burning those calories as you go (a la Michael Phelps, etc.). But, I’m pretty confident no bodybuilder/powerlifters are spending 6-8 hours a day on aerobic conditioning.
In fact, I’m pretty sure the whole idea of these over-the-top bulking diets are the result of a serious disconnect between what the pros do and what natural trainees take away from that. Many, many people do not realize that all pros are on steroids. So, when those trainees hear so and so takes in like 10,000 cals a day to get huge, they of course are going to follow suit. They don’t understand that even the greatest genes in the world cannot overcome those thousands of excess calories a day.
The body is a thermodynamic machine. Whether or not people want to accept that is of no consequence. The human body does not exist outside of natural law. Yes, you will have variances in your TDEE and caloric needs from day to day, hour to hour. But all tolled, you will arrive at an average well below what most Pros eat to bulk at a similar weight and height.
To wit, a 250 lb natural trainee cannot eat as much without gaining fat as he could if here were on gear. This is true no matter how great your genetics are or what your potential is.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]T3hPwnisher wrote:
and secondly to keep your insulin spiked constantly through out the day. Apparently, the man with this secret was J M Blakely. [/quote]
…Key point…that actually worked apparently.
You just don’t get lean that way.
The rest of what gets left out is how hard he was training WHILE doing that.[/quote]
Definitely. Westside Barbell did a ton of work then (I imagine they do now as well). “Extra workouts” on top of the main work are apparently pretty big.
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
I’m not sure if it was the same article, but he has one on here where he basically explains that neither his bulking nor cutting routines are all that enjoyable. The takeaway, to my mind, is that you always have to put work in whether bulking or cutting - diet is always a factor and must be given its proper due.[/quote]
Agree completely. It takes real effort to constantly and consistently eat with a purpose every single day on end for several years. It is by no means easy either way you go.
I have tried to go into that before but wasn’t allowed to continue the discussion due to the usual nonsense from the same posters. I believe that those times where you can force more growth would be based on the age of the lifter and their level of training.
These theories or concepts are usually shouted down by people who think the human body has some constant rate of change and growth…which does not follow any biological model.
I didn’t say that. I said they don’t change the basics of what he is saying. I did NOT say that they don’t change how much you can eat.
Then you blame any person who thinks they should eat EXACTLY what someone 100lbs heavier than them should.
Look, steroids can increase metabolism and allow more food intake. That doesn’t mean that his basic concept of WHY he was eating that often doesn’t hold true.
I pretty much took words like that and had the mentality to NOT simply throw down 10,000calories in day but to eat enough to where I could see that my strength was going up and most of what I was gaining was muscle.
That is what “bulking up” is.
Then he should eat less. Again what does this have to do with the basics concept?
Why would ANYONE eat exactly as much as someone else unless they shard similar physiques and goals?
I agree, then. One needs to really consider his or her own goals first and not blindy accept what other people are doing.
My only point was that AAS use is a very important consideration when planning a diet, and when comparing one’s diet against another’s. Many people in the beginner stages don’t realize.
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
I agree, then. One needs to really consider his or her own goals first and not blindy accept what other people are doing.
My only point was that AAS use is a very important consideration when planning a diet, and when comparing one’s diet against another’s. Many people in the beginner stages don’t realize.[/quote]
I also think it has gotten so much attention lately that people now use this to say that “no natural can gain more than x amount”…which is happening all over the forum.
People use “steroids” to now mean you can’t get really big without it…because they are only looking at guys who compete in natural bodybuilding and don’t understand that different structures mean way different looks. It has become the “period” at the end of discussions as if all bets are off even looking at what someone does because steroids were involved.
Look, Dave Tate’s idea was to USE insulin to gain even more muscle in the long run.
It is why I am writing this now…because this strategy is WHY there are like 10 guys the relative size of Arnold today in any real gym and there was ONLY ONE 60 years ago.
It isn’t just the “steroids”…and the biggest guys seem to still be doing it the same way.
I actually havent found bulking and cutting to be much different. same workouts, +/- a few hundred calories
deep into a cut calories get lower and the diet becomes a bit painful, but really it’s nothing too epic either way
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:
I should add that when Dave Tate was on his mystical 10,000+ calorie/a day bulk, he was also almost certainly using AAS. It doesn’t matter to me, and I think if you want to be competitive as a powerlifter at that caliber, you are definitely going to be doing so. But obviously, eating that much as a natural is really not going to get you anywhere good, unless you are purely concerned with scale weight. I originally brought it up just as a humerous anecdote about extreme diets.[/quote]
One important point to make…anyone looking at a number like that and thinking they should follow the NUMBER is missing the point of what he was saying.
Dave Tate never told any newb to eat 10,000calories…ever. He has never told anyone to eat 10,000calories in a day.
Steroids do not change the basics of what he is discussing. It is assumed that the person has at least decent genetics for this.
He was not directing his statements at the guy who lifts for 20 years and never gets arms over 16".[/quote]
Please share how steriods do not change how eating a massive amount of calories is differnt than baseline hormone levels. Teach me the physiology and how those two would be the same. Please. I’m dead serious. I want to here you defend how steriods do not change anything.