great post as always stu. Very insightful.
How quickly do you gain weight after a show?
EDIT: my post is obviously directed towards stu.
the tuesday after my show i weighed a bit over 180 lbsā that was nov 12th i thinkā¦now i weigh about 190lbs and i dont want to go over 200 lbs before i diet again(infact 195 lbs sounds abit right)ā¦i had to kill myself to get in shape and i dont intend to suffer that much again.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]GrindOverMatter wrote:
what do you think is a good rate of weight gain for a natty in the off season? im curious of your opinion on this topic, im trying to stick to around 2 lbs a month personally.
[/quote]
Iām not an expert but I think I know a bit. I say a person should increase their calories by 500 to 1000 and monitor their body composition every two weeks. Obviously, if things go wrong sooner, you can tweak the calories back down a bit and/or tinker around with macros. I donāt know if going by a set number with disregard for body comp is the best idea.
It also depends on someoneās experience. As said before, past the fourth year of being natural, muscular gains are VERY slow, and the dedicated trainee might only gain a few pounds of muscle or negligible amount per year.
Hopefully Stu can chime in on this. [/quote]
Itās true that everyone is different, and we can argue whether increased food beyond a certain point will actually lead to increased muscle mass all we want (it wonāt, for the record -lol), but what I think is going to determine what is a good rate of weight gain for an off season natty guy, is how comfortable you are with your honest lean muscle gains vs your enjoyment of life.
For me, I know how quickly I can get into contest shape. I also know that itās not a walk in the park if youāre doing it correctly, and to the extreme levels needed for stage success. This always weighs in the back of your mind after your first show; am I just adding bodyfat now that Iāll have to suffer to take off later? Of course I also like to enjoy some of the tasty foods that are out there, and having to be so strict during a cut, makes me want to indulge a bit when Iām not aiming for a show.
Then thereās the psychological component. If youāre coming off of being extremely lean, those first few pounds (re)gained are going to have a huge visual impact, especially as youāre still going to be quite lean. Of course, getting 10 lbs above a contest weight a month or two after being sickeningly shredded can really depress some people.
Brick is correct in his statement about diminishing returns. The longer you train, the smaller jumps in progress you will experience. Of course quality gains, even when smaller in terms of scale weight, can be quite impressive on a contest ready physique. Thatās why you will see many of the top natural competitors having similar weights each year, and yet their composition is much much better. They understand that you canāt rush muscle gain, no matter how much the scale may egg you on.
S[/quote]
Awesome postā¦it is crazy difficult to get that lean.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
i used to workout in a gym full of NPC and IFBB pros, and up and coming naturals as well. and no matter what condition people were in be it off season or pre contest, nobody laughed at the guys who were in full on bulking mode and rocking a big gut and equally as large arms. only on this forum do they get shit on for gaining 40lbs and looking jacked but softā¦[/quote]
This is a very good point.
I have worked out at two famous gyms one more focussed on powerlifting and one on BB.
AT NO POINT did this shit cross anyoneās mind or was ever said. Instead people would honestly be looking around with the expression of holy fuck look at the size of that dude.
The ridiculous thing is that the recent pics of X are not even remotely of a fat guy.
At the BB gym alot of guys would train shirtless, there were a few dude without question with more BF than X who were absolutely jacked as fuck and some of the shit posted here is just so laughable. No one would think or say this stuff in real life.
Some of the loudest mouths here are of skinny fat dweebs who are barely even deadlifting in the 300s.
There is another guy here writing huge ass posts about how X should lose a few pounds and he himself looks like a fucking tooth pick! is this real life?
It is fucked up and WRONG that they are talking so much shit constantly.
It is a shame that they are being validated by some folks who are in shape and thus are getting the confidence to shout their mouths off more and more.
Someone posts here who is 250 and massive, we should all be grateful for any insight he might have. I can think of NO ONE who regularly posts in the BB forum who are so heavily built. He is a major asset. [/quote]
Either youāre professor X posting another a different name or you want to be inside of him. Seriously the most complete nutriding Iāve ever witnessed on these forums.[/quote]
You didnāt respond to one point he made. You just called it ānutridingāā¦yet I notice compliments given to other posters here donāt gain that title.
Try responding to points being made. That is how discussions take place.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Not one natural has built 80 pounds of muscle. [/quote]
I am baffled by this statement and the fact that no one else saw it as problematic.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Not one natural has built 80 pounds of muscle.
Most big guys donāt have much insight, nor is there much insight to provide once someone learns about decent programming, after which point, itās mostly up to the individual.
Open your eyes: youāll see in REAL LIFE people have received and given far worse treatment than telling someone theyāre carrying a bit too much fat! Iāve seen it with my own eyes. Havenāt you?
Telling someone, āBro, you gotta trim down,ā or āImagine what youāll look like when you shed all that fat? Youāll look greatā are not horrible things to say. Iāve heard far worse. [/quote]
I do believe his point is that there is a tad too much focus there lately.
You donāt ignore the progress someone has made to constantly point out that they are ā15%ā body fat and that you think they should diet down.
Other than that, the statement that no one has ever built 80lbs of muscle mass as a natural is just flat out ridiculous. You have a serious issue with claiming limits for all people that have no basis in science or real fact.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Other than that, the statement that no one has ever built 80lbs of muscle mass as a natural is just flat out ridiculous. [/quote]
How is it ridiculous considering no one has done it.
Also, stating something hasnāt happened isnāt putting limitations on anyone. Itās stating something. Thatās it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You donāt ignore the progress someone has made to constantly point out that they are ā15%ā body fat and that you think they should diet down.
[/quote]
Judging from your physique, we know youāve made progress. If you donāt want to get your bodyfat down, thatās fine. Someone here suggested it, and youāre not going with the suggestion. Itās not a problem.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You donāt ignore the progress someone has made to constantly point out that they are ā15%ā body fat and that you think they should diet down.
[/quote]
Judging from your physique, we know youāve made progress. If you donāt want to get your bodyfat down, thatās fine. Someone here suggested it, and youāre not going with the suggestion. Itās not a problem. [/quote]
I put on 80lb of muscle. Mad food. Mad lifting. Natural.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Other than that, the statement that no one has ever built 80lbs of muscle mass as a natural is just flat out ridiculous. [/quote]
How is it ridiculous considering no one has done it.
Also, stating something hasnāt happened isnāt putting limitations on anyone. Itās stating something. Thatās it. [/quote]
I started at 135lbs
I did my first cycle at 222lbs
Iām now 245
BF% fluctuated but was similar at all numbers given.
Iāll let you do the math. You look far to old to be so ignorant and foolish. Step it up, its embarrassing.
[quote]BigJJ88 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Other than that, the statement that no one has ever built 80lbs of muscle mass as a natural is just flat out ridiculous. [/quote]
How is it ridiculous considering no one has done it.
Also, stating something hasnāt happened isnāt putting limitations on anyone. Itās stating something. Thatās it. [/quote]
I started at 135lbs
I did my first cycle at 222lbs
Iām now 245
BF% fluctuated but was similar at all numbers given.
Iāll let you do the math. You look far to old to be so ignorant and foolish. Step it up, its embarrassing.[/quote]
Maybe you suck at math, but you didnāt break 80lbs of muscle at 222(in fact even at 245 you probably havenāt).
^^couple questions.
How tall are you?
How old weāre you at that 135?
If you ādo the mathāā¦ Even at a very lean number like 10% BF, thatās still not an 80lb muscle gain.
The backlash to Brickās statement goes to show how ignorant people around here can be when it comes to numbersā¦jusā sayinā
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Not one natural has built 80 pounds of muscle. [/quote]
I am baffled by this statement and the fact that no one else saw it as problematic.[/quote]
Who cares? Theyāre just numbers he āpulled out of his assā right?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Other than that, the statement that no one has ever built 80lbs of muscle mass as a natural is just flat out ridiculous. [/quote]
How is it ridiculous considering no one has done it.
Also, stating something hasnāt happened isnāt putting limitations on anyone. Itās stating something. Thatās it. [/quote]
we have been through this before, profx will cry about how your just limiting people and will never get to his size thinking like that. yet he wont provide a single example of a natural that has put on 80lb or pure muscle.
i also find it funny when he says there is no science to back up your claims, yet people like alan aragon, eric helms, lyle mcdonald and many other very well respected people in the science of nutrition and bodybuilding would agree with you.
[quote]BigJJ88 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Other than that, the statement that no one has ever built 80lbs of muscle mass as a natural is just flat out ridiculous. [/quote]
How is it ridiculous considering no one has done it.
Also, stating something hasnāt happened isnāt putting limitations on anyone. Itās stating something. Thatās it. [/quote]
I started at 135lbs
I did my first cycle at 222lbs
Iām now 245
BF% fluctuated but was similar at all numbers given.
Iāll let you do the math. You look far to old to be so ignorant and foolish. Step it up, its embarrassing.[/quote]
How old were you when you started? Were you underfed or be considered undweight for your height when you started at 135?
When I speak of such gains, Iām not referring to starting from underweight and/or full physical development from puberty, both of which result in lean mass gain with no training just from adequate nutrition.
What is your estimate of your bodyfat that was similar at all numbers given?
Thanks for the criticism. Iāll try stepping it up.
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
we have been through this before, profx will cry about how your just limiting people and will never get to his size thinking like that. yet he wont provide a single example of a natural that has put on 80lb or pure muscle.[/quote]
True, this has played out more times than I can recall, and while I will agree that itās never a positive thing to put finite end goals on yourself, I have yet to hear an example of any natural bodybuilder who has definitively (not BS claims of what they weighed as an undernourished 12 year old compared to a >20% bf forever bulked adult) packed on 80 lbs of solid, unquestionable muscle tissue.
Not that this issue keeps me up at night or anything, but itās a little ridiculous that since the 1950ās, with all the bodybuilders that have documented their stats, we canāt find a single instance, and yet people will still argue about it.
[quote]
i also find it funny when he says there is no science to back up your claims, yet people like alan aragon, eric helms, lyle mcdonald and many other very well respected people in the science of nutrition and bodybuilding would agree with you.[/quote]
While (some of) the names you mentioned have some serious egos and attitudes about them, they are all very committed to the actual science, and study of empirical evidence about our little sport/hobby here. I donāt see how these people have anything to lose should they be proven wrong and some genetic freak pops out of nowhere smashing their perceived barriers. Itās not like theyāre running around like heretics on every web forum out there (like some of their readers seem to be).
Of course, the term ābarrierā itself may be incorrect, as itās simply a best guestimate as to what is possible after painstakingly evaluating everything that has occurred up to now. Now Iām no Dr. Sheldon Cooper here, but to me, assembling all known knowledge and statistics up to the present, in an attempt to draw some sort of approximation of what is possible in certain given circumstances, certainly seems scientific -lol.
S
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Other than that, the statement that no one has ever built 80lbs of muscle mass as a natural is just flat out ridiculous. [/quote]
How is it ridiculous considering no one has done it.
Also, stating something hasnāt happened isnāt putting limitations on anyone. Itās stating something. Thatās it. [/quote]
Dude, I am not even sure where these numbers are coming from. You are making this statement based off of what population studies?
That is the point being madeā¦you are getting this from faulty information sources focused ONLY on ānatural bodybuildingā.
Why is it if anyone doesnāt drink the Kool-Aid around here, suddenly they get jumped from one hundred different posters?
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
True, this has played out more times than I can recall, and while I will agree that itās never a positive thing to put finite end goals on yourself, I have yet to hear an example of any natural bodybuilder who has definitively (not BS claims of what they weighed as an undernourished 12 year old compared to a >20% bf forever bulked adult) packed on 80 lbs of solid, unquestionable muscle tissue. [/quote]
I am pretty sure Kingbeef is about there now and I know I did itā¦but hey, we donāt count.
Looking at ONLY ānatural bodybuildingā is the problem, chief.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
True, this has played out more times than I can recall, and while I will agree that itās never a positive thing to put finite end goals on yourself, I have yet to hear an example of any natural bodybuilder who has definitively (not BS claims of what they weighed as an undernourished 12 year old compared to a >20% bf forever bulked adult) packed on 80 lbs of solid, unquestionable muscle tissue. [/quote]
I am pretty sure Kingbeef is about there now and I know I did itā¦but hey, we donāt count.
Looking at ONLY ānatural bodybuildingā is the problem, chief.[/quote]
KingBeef is certainly one big guy, no doubt, and I have nothing but respect for his physique, and the way he conducts himself. Making this about what you personally did (as you usually do as your evidence),ā¦ well, Iām not going near that hornetās nest no matter how much you poke,ā¦ chief.
But letās look for a moment at someone starting out, at an average bf%. I know that when I started lifting, I weighed about 150 lbs, and was pretty soft. Sure I ran track, played hockey, BS/Non strength sports, but an average looking guy.
So 150 lbs, at an optimistic bodyfat level of 15% yields about 127.5 lbs of Non-Fat mass (you can break it down into skeletal weight if you want, I donāt particularly care to).
Keeping in line with the same level of bodyfat at 15%, to increase scale weight 80 lbs while body comp remains constant, weāre looking at 244 lbs (with a fat-free scale weight of 207.5 lbs).
Now I donāt know about you (obviously), but to me, 244 lbs, at 15% bodyfat, is staggering, especially if youāre of average height, and actually started off at a healthy (non-underfed) weight and body composition.
Iām by no means saying that 244 lbs at 15% is impossible, it most certainly is, BUT, for someone to start 80 lbs of muscle mass less, in a healthy state,ā¦ well, I havenāt seen it, and apparently people with a scientific interest in the sport, who have studied itās history as their profession havenāt either. (Far be it from me to argue with a dentist on an internet forum though.)
And of course Brick was discussing natural bodybuilders. Weād be idiots if we pretended that chemical means to augment the bodyās natural ability to recover and synthesize new tissue didnāt change the game.
S