The only way to tell Lean body mass is :
Total bodyweight - fat mass (bodyfat percentage x total weight)= LBM
This is why you measure body fat when ‘bulking’ To see what is fat and what is lean body mass. Every month your LBM should be going up. In 9 years i’ve never seen anyone put on more than 1.5kg LBM MAX (natural)in a month.
UNLESS YOUR ASSESSING, YOUR JUST GUESSING!
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Tbone2005 wrote:
I do have a question for you. Do you think that there is a maximum caloric intake that if you go past, your body will no longer be able to build muscle any faster than it already is and will either store the excess calories or get rid of them as waste or do you believe that all the calories that you can possibly take in will keep building muscle and not fat?
It varies based on the person. Some guys can eat like hogs and keep gaining muscle. Others will gain so much fat that it’s not worth it.
Of course, I’ve never met a person who can turn every excess calorie he eats into muscle. I often joked that this would be a nice “super hero” power to have.
So the idea is: What works better long term? That is what building a great body should look towards, right?
A lot of guys here think they are Men’s Health cover models, and thus must protect their abs at all costs. Why they have such an inflated self-image is a mystery to me. If those abs/physique were that great, they’d be models, right? But they’re not, so why do they act like models?[/quote]
Good response. I think those guys that can keep eating though for the most are enhanced.
I totally agree with you that the men’s health look is not what getting huge is about. I think that is is nearly impossible to stay at 5 to 6% and gain any sort of noticeable mass unless you are enhanced. I think you can still be in caloric surplus and stay in 9-11% range with little difficulty if you are willing to monitor things as is necessary.
I am not trying to pick a fight with you or anyone else, and it may have been the way that I was looking at your post. Just all the ripping each other isn’t my style.
Take it easy and lift and eat BIG!
[quote]stockzy wrote:
The only way to tell Lean body mass is :
Total bodyweight - fat mass (bodyfat percentage x total weight)= LBM
This is why you measure body fat when ‘bulking’ To see what is fat and what is lean body mass. Every month your LBM should be going up. In 9 years i’ve never seen anyone put on more than 1.5kg LBM MAX (natural)in a month.
UNLESS YOUR ASSESSING, YOUR JUST GUESSING![/quote]
I think you should get Berardi Points for that, not quite as good as CT points, but good none the less.
I’m definitely agreeing with you, if you don’t measure and log your progress, you don’t know shit about what you are gaining.
[quote]stockzy wrote:
In 9 years i’ve never seen anyone put on more than 1.5kg LBM MAX (natural)in a month.
UNLESS YOUR ASSESSING, YOUR JUST GUESSING![/quote]
There are many people here who, becuase they will follow the advice in the “truth” article won’t gain that in a year.
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
I’m with you most of the way here Tiribulus, except when you say you gained about 15 in 4 months. You may very well have, but until you cut you won’t really know. What seems like 15 of muscle may have more fat in it than you think.
And to ensure my intent, I’m not in the stay lean camp, I’m in the build muscle camp. I do get fairly soft when I do it and gain a fair amount of fat. My whole stand is that there is a point of diminishing returns. There is a ceiling on how much muscle one can build.
By the way I’ve earned my way into the above 35 forum and you’re right, I don’t care too much about the extra fat at all.[/quote]
I assure you that I do know that raw weight does not translate into lean gains. All the variables considered I’ve gained right around 15 pounds of lean weight since March.
You’re not in the stay lean camp and I’m not in the “get fat” camp whoever that may be.
There is a point of diminishing returns. There’s also a point of dwindling gains. If you shoot between those two you will make the most gains you are genetically capable of without being either fat or ripped.
The discussion here is about guys who think they are strapped to some minimal max so why bother eating any more than is necessary for that trickle to continue if it even does when you’re preoccupied with the wrong priority.
BTW, I wasn’t addressing you in particular with my first post. It was more along the lines of guys who are thrilled with much smaller gains than they’re capable of because they think that’s all they’ve got and they stayed lean making them.
EDIT: Actually I now see that you misread what I said and thought I said “4 months”. What I actually said was “4 months less” I would be skeptical of someone like me saying that they gained 15 pounds in 4 months as well.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Add Dave Tate to the list of people who didn’t believe the “truth” about bulking. Like the very author of the “true” article, Mr. Tate carried around an appreciable amount of bodyfat while he built he physique. He has now lost that weight and looks better than anyone who will ever decide to “cut” when weighing 150 pounds.
The Truth Is Out There:
http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=47567&tid=124
http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=47568&tid=124 [/quote]
He is no doubt jacked, but the real reason behind the transformation was health issues? If he had stayed at a lower % fat he might not have ran into these problems.
[quote]John M Berardi wrote:
February 2006
Dave Tate contacts me for help. We go through his everyday plan and I discover Dave’s got some horrible eating habits, nearly 20% body fat, and a health profile in need of serious repair. Here’s the article write-up I did about his situation.
[/quote]
I believe too many good physiques have been lost to classic bulking. If you have the discipline to shred the fat you gain from that bulking style, then go for it. If you don’t, a CT clean bulking strategy might be more your style.
Hell, maybe a nice tan could help some people?
Most people never gain cause they have poor exercise selection, poor consistencey, poor understanding of progression and a poor attitude, they REALLY just don’t want it. Christian’s advice is sound if combined with quality workouts and progressions. But as usual, the guys that don’t gain, turn up every now and then and do bicep curls and bench, then complain. As long as your getting results, let the skinny boys stand to make you look better. They’ll listen one day…
[quote]alownage wrote:
jbodzin wrote:
It was very obvious that CT’s article was geared towards long term trained individuals and not your average Newbie Gym Rat.
Apparently it wasn’t obvious to all the newbie gym rats.[/quote]
Damit, you got me. lol =)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Excuse me while I cry bullshit. CT also BULKED UP and was MUCH HEAVIER in the past. While you argue what “might be”, I will continue with what IS. The moment those afraid of ever going above 10% body fat start passing me up in terms of strength of size gains in majority, then it will be time to re-evaluate. We are not seeing that in majority or even in minority outside of one or two people being pointed out when it is a fact that no matter the rule, genetics will always allow an anomaly to break it, much like Dexter Jackson never did cardio until recently. Does that mean most people could get away with that and look the way he does?
Likewise, no one is talking about becoming obese. When I look around the gym, the numbers of truly large bodybuilders has decreased drastically. Why would I follow what the smallest are doing? Why would I listen to what a trainer says while ignoring what they actually DID to look the way they do?
CT was questioned in his own article. This has nothing to do with attacking him as an individual.
I personally am sick of theory being discussed as if real world results are the secondary issue. We can talk theory forever, but if those following it all have arms under 16-17", why would I need to listen to it?[/quote]
You’re excused.
Are you saying it’s impossible to gain the same amount of muscle whitout gaining fat? Is it not possible to make your lean body mass gains over 90% of your overall gains?
My point is that the extreme attention to the smallest detain wouldn’t be worth it to those who choose to allow the amount of fat gain that most will gain while bulking.
I’m saying it’s possible to gain the same amount of muscle with enough calories and working out with enough intensity to max out one’s own muscle building capabilities without gaining over APPROXIMATELY 10% fat. Meaning that 90% of their gains could be lean body mass.
It can be easier to gain, let’s say 80% LBM and 20% fat with your overall bulking gains, then cut off the excess fat later, and it may also be worth it to those who don’t want to bother taking the extra effort to make 90% or more of their overall gains lean body mass.
It would make sence that most of the people who sucessfully bulked up, did so with higher body fat, because it’s easier to do it that way.
I also understand that even more people are not gaining fast enough because bulking up, even with the excess fat gain is still much more difficult than the way most are trying to do it.
I’m not saying getting big is easy, I’m just saying it’s still possible, and more difficult to get the same gains with less fat.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
SWR-1240 wrote:
Was my example of Stan McQuay not specific enough?
Speak of the devil! Stan McQuay actually said that he would have been a pro sooner had he not been so worried about staying lean year round. Did you miss that, or do you only hear what you want to hear?
[/quote]
I remember him saying that the fact that he finally started adding cardio to his plan is what helped him get his pro card too.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The discussion here is about guys who think they are strapped to some minimal max so why bother eating any more than is necessary for that trickle to continue if it even does when you’re preoccupied with the wrong priority.
[/quote]
Good point, I guess I was trying to divert focus to measurable, manageable variables, like gaining strength.
I wonder if the people in the keep the six pack at all cost camp are even reachable? At this point in my life I don’t know if you, or I, or anyone can help someone who ignores objective reason just to hang on to their beliefs at all cost. I’m tending to think that they need time to live and learn the hard way and we cannot speed that up for them. I also believe it applies to the bulk at all cost people too. I knew from your fist post that you weren’t in that camp either, but some, like the person who replied to one of my posts saying that while I’m thinking about economics, others are getting more jacked than I (a gross paraphrase), are as blind as the fataphobic.
lol, I think I’m the delusional one, I actually keep trying to use rational argument with irrational people. In my little fantasy world everyone would have a thoughtful discussion and expand their thinking into something that works.
BTW, I’m usually arguing with skinny people to get them to think about strength.
Time to go train, I’ve wasted enough of my company time!
I haven’t read this thread but I’m pretty sure I can sum it up…
There’s no absolute’s when it comes to gaining mass. Hell there’s no absolutes when it comes to gaining strength either.
Just because someone does it in a way that counters anothers opinion on how it should be done doesn’t invalidate the persons way of doing.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat you know. And in bodybuilding and powerlifting both can return equal gains.
Yes, it is a myth that you can’t be highly conditioned and overfat.
[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
SWR-1240 wrote:
Was my example of Stan McQuay not specific enough?
Speak of the devil! Stan McQuay actually said that he would have been a pro sooner had he not been so worried about staying lean year round. Did you miss that, or do you only hear what you want to hear?
I remember him saying that the fact that he finally started adding cardio to his plan is what helped him get his pro card too.[/quote]
The thing that’s killin me about this whole discussion since I’ve been around this site is the people who worship at the shrine of the golden stomach keep incessantly mischaracterizing any other view as the fatso bulking crowd.
I brought this up in a thread a couple months ago. Nobody has been a stronger or more representative advocate of the eat big to get big philosophy than Professor X. Can someone please point me to somewhere where he has ever said anybody had to “get fat” to make optimal gains? All he or anyone, including myself has ever said is larger and quicker gains can be had if you accept that some fat will be gained along the way. Earlier in this thread he says essentially that again.
Some fat is not the same as “getting fat”. Is there any way this can be settled once and for all? If somebody wants to be lean all the time then fine, but don’t attempt to convince those of us who know better that you are making the same muscular gains that you could be if you just let go of the divine abs for a while.
Wow… this is still going on 
I think that a lot of peoples missed out the real messages behind my “Bulking” article. To sum up the gist of it:
You cannot build muscle if you do not consume more calories than you use (I think we can all agree with that)
A NATURAL trainee has a limited capacity to build muscle because he is limited in his capacity to synthesize muscle tissue from the ingested food. We can call that his anabolic ceiling
Eating more food UNTIL YOU REACH YOUR CEILING will lead to increased muscle gains. BUT once past that ceiling adding more food will NOT help you add more muscle
Therefore it is pointless to overeat past the point where your body can use the food to build muscle. Past your ceiling you will only store the food as fat
I did make these points clear in the article. No way do I advocate eating like a bird. I do recommend increasing food intake to stimulate more muscle growth. But once you reach a point where added calories/nutrients will not contribute to more growth there is no point in ingesting any more calories.
FOR THE RECORD I have started a mass gaining phase in September (after basically having stopped training for 3 months) and my calories are pretty high. Right now I’m at 4500kcals on training days and 4000kcals on “off” days. I’ve went up as high as 5500kcals and 4750kcals for 2 weeks and then started to gain more fat without gaining more muscle so I cut back down on the calories.
I am currently 237lbs (morning weight) still with abs and obliques. I started on the first week of September at 209lbs … now don’t call me out about “gaining more than 2lbs per month” … a lot of it was regained muscle.
Anyway the point is that I am NOT against eating a lot of food; I do eat a lot myself. But I am against eating more food than what is necessary to achieve a maximal rate of muscle growth.
I think that the biggest problem with the article was the 10% figure. I actually regret putting that up there because (for one thing) I don’t even use body fat testing myself. I simply used it as an example to illustrate that one should not accept excessive fat gain when trying to add muscle mass.
I’m kinda dissapointed that this one bad example led many peoples to disregard the basic message of the article: eat enough to grow maximally but not so much as you gain too much fat.
With myself and my clients I generally accept a 1 for 2 or 1 for 1 (in the case of ectos) ratio of fat-to-muscle gain. It is acceptable to gain 5-7lbs of fat to gain 10lbs of muscle… but gaining 20lbs of fat to add the same 10lbs of muscle is NOT acceptable in my book.
Once again to clear off the confusion:
You need to eat a caloric excess to grow
Your body has a limited capacity to use food to build muscle (if you are natural… if you are enhanced it’s a different story)
Eating more food than what you can use to build muscle is a waste and will only make you fatter
Eating a lot of food, calories and nutrients… YES! Eating junk and justifying it as a “bulking phase” … NO!
End of story
[quote]DtotheG wrote:
Hell, maybe a nice tan could help some people?[/quote]
This was the best post in this thread.
And regarding Stan … he did get bigger this year and that helped. But even at his heaviest (228) he had abs. So this doesn’t go against what I was saying at all. He did eat enough to grow maximally… added 12lbs of muscle, gained some fat doing it BUT stayed in good condition and didn’t get sloppy. This is EXACTLY what I was saying in the article.
Good post, CT. I do think that the 10% figure is what threw things off so much. I don’t think that is realistic for many people. I can stay reasonably lean and make good muscle gains, personally, but I cannot stay at 9-10% and put on appreciable muscle. That’s just the way my body is.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Wow… this is still going on :)…
Once again to clear off the confusion:
You need to eat a caloric excess to grow
Your body has a limited capacity to use food to build muscle (if you are natural… if you are enhanced it’s a different story)
Eating more food than what you can use to build muscle is a waste and will only make you fatter
Eating a lot of food, calories and nutrients… YES! Eating junk and justifying it as a “bulking phase” … NO!
End of story[/quote]
That was much needed and I think will help clear quite a bit up. I for one concur with what you’ve said. Of course eating beyond your capacity to grow is ill advised. That’s what I’ve been harping on. Somehow if you say some fat will accumulate if you plan to make optimal gains it seems to mean for some people that you just said to eat 10,000 calories of junk food to bulk.
The 10% thing sent a bunch of guys on tangents. It was good to hear you say that it was just a number to illustrate a point and not unbendable divine revelation like some took it. I’ll be interested to hear what some others say.