Truth About Bulking and Dave Tate

Training Bodybuilding
101

I don’t comment hardly ever - I reserve that for times when I read something utterly ridiculous. This is one of those times.

How in the world some one is going to argue the fact that any …ANY…person who wins their pro card in bodybuilding MUST be on steroids is beyond me. Totally beyond me.

Even with these top strength and conditioning coaches one MUST be on anabolics to reach the level of a professional bodybuilder. There are NO truly natural pro competitors…they are like those born again virgins who stopped having sex for 9 months and suddenly are brand new again. If you didn’t know, most of those so-called “naturals” used roids for years and now took a 6 month hiatus and consider themselves natural.

Let’s be real on this next point too- the level to which one is able to maintain minimal fat levels and get jacked is pure genetics. Don’t let any one here convince you otherwise…if you buy the soap they’re selling you’re going to be sorry, believe me.

Genetics is the word that puts the brakes on the supplement companies, so they pay high caliber strength coaches to say you can turn an endomorph into a mesomorph with this or that training and to be sure a boatload of endorsed supps.

Yall yelling at this guy who says you cant get huge while putting on hardly any body fat but you’re brainwashed. You’re going to have to make a choice- quality physique with a decent degree of muscle mass or bulk up lose your quality in favor of pure ‘bigness’ for the duration of the phase then cut up later. Genetic freaks aside, all us normal dudes have two choices.

I read a lot of you trying to jock the pros and delude yourselves into believing they did it with hard work and eating 30 cans of tuna a week and bowls of clean carbs with buckets of assorted endorsed supps.

What’s wrong with you people? Just because this or that pro might post here doesn’t mean you can’t keep it real. Sure, they will never admit they are stickin needles in their ass but a surprise piss or blood test would shatter that illusion right quick- hence the ANNOUNCED drug testing.

These guys are on all sorts of pills and you know it. You want their physique then you need to start shootin up and hope you have the right genetics because it’s the only way you’ll ever see a stage.

This site is for those of us who keep it real in the industry. Most of us won’t be a pro in anything but that doesnt mean the guy who got the lucky genetic break and uses the good drugs knows anything about anything…often they don’t know how in the world they developed the physique they did and then get picked up by some magazine and are paid to endorse some garbage and claim that’s how they built their body.

EVERY pro bodybuilder has the rare genetics, every one of them, and every one of them uses the good drugs and those that claim otherwise are just liars, whether they post on the T-Nation forums or not. No deference shall be given to these frauds who shoot 2000mg test weekly and claim they got in shape by eating a cup of brown rice and 2 chicken breasts for lunch, squatted til they puked, and got 8 hrs of sleep every night.

102

[quote]USNS physique wrote:
I don’t comment hardly ever - I reserve that for times when I read something utterly ridiculous. This is one of those times.

How in the world some one is going to argue the fact that any …ANY…person who wins their pro card in bodybuilding MUST be on steroids is beyond me. Totally beyond me.

Even with these top strength and conditioning coaches one MUST be on anabolics to reach the level of a professional bodybuilder. There are NO truly natural pro competitors…they are like those born again virgins who stopped having sex for 9 months and suddenly are brand new again. If you didn’t know, most of those so-called “naturals” used roids for years and now took a 6 month hiatus and consider themselves natural.

Let’s be real on this next point too- the level to which one is able to maintain minimal fat levels and get jacked is pure genetics. Don’t let any one here convince you otherwise…if you buy the soap they’re selling you’re going to be sorry, believe me.

Genetics is the word that puts the brakes on the supplement companies, so they pay high caliber strength coaches to say you can turn an endomorph into a mesomorph with this or that training and to be sure a boatload of endorsed supps.

Yall yelling at this guy who says you cant get huge while putting on hardly any body fat but you’re brainwashed. You’re going to have to make a choice- quality physique with a decent degree of muscle mass or bulk up lose your quality in favor of pure ‘bigness’ for the duration of the phase then cut up later. Genetic freaks aside, all us normal dudes have two choices.

I read a lot of you trying to jock the pros and delude yourselves into believing they did it with hard work and eating 30 cans of tuna a week and bowls of clean carbs with buckets of assorted endorsed supps.

What’s wrong with you people? Just because this or that pro might post here doesn’t mean you can’t keep it real. Sure, they will never admit they are stickin needles in their ass but a surprise piss or blood test would shatter that illusion right quick- hence the ANNOUNCED drug testing.

These guys are on all sorts of pills and you know it. You want their physique then you need to start shootin up and hope you have the right genetics because it’s the only way you’ll ever see a stage.

This site is for those of us who keep it real in the industry. Most of us won’t be a pro in anything but that doesnt mean the guy who got the lucky genetic break and uses the good drugs knows anything about anything…often they don’t know how in the world they developed the physique they did and then get picked up by some magazine and are paid to endorse some garbage and claim that’s how they built their body.

EVERY pro bodybuilder has the rare genetics, every one of them, and every one of them uses the good drugs and those that claim otherwise are just liars, whether they post on the T-Nation forums or not. No deference shall be given to these frauds who shoot 2000mg test weekly and claim they got in shape by eating a cup of brown rice and 2 chicken breasts for lunch, squatted til they puked, and got 8 hrs of sleep every night.[/quote]

Thank you so much for clearing all that up for us. Whew!!! what a relief!! and to think all this time the dumbasses here have been laboring under the illusion that people earned their pro card with chicken and brown rice.

I, for one, am personally grateful that I now know who this site is for. Everybody who doesn’t “keep it real in the industry” please leave. You’ve obviously been invading somebody else’s space.

However you should be especially proud of winning this weeks special achievement award for your outstanding contribution to the sport of ignorant over generalization and this in the super heavyweight class.

If you hadn’t surfaced long enough to tell us that all that’s needed is “the good drugs” and “rare genetics” we may have continued believing that there were really big guys who actually worked hard and took the time to learn.

My thanksgiving day is now complete. I was going to thank God for my my family, my health and his grace, but you’ve given me so much more.

103

trib-

wow, maybe take a little nap and unwind before the company comes, huh!

quick! Give this man some tryptophan

104

I hate to say it trib, but he’s right, he just went about saying it in a lame way.

105

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
trib-

wow, maybe take a little nap and unwind before the company comes, huh!

quick! Give this man some tryptophan[/quote]

Every once in a while a man has an unexpected event that truly redefines the way he lives the rest of his life. I’ll never forget this day. Please wake me up in time for dinner.

106

[quote]Roy wrote:
I hate to say it trib, but he’s right, he just went about saying it in a lame way.[/quote]

LOL

107

[quote]Roy wrote:
I hate to say it trib, but he’s right, he just went about saying it in a lame way.[/quote]

If you needed to be told, in the year 2006, that it takes pharmaceutically enhanced exceptional genetics to perform at the top of the pro ranks then OK. I’m going to grab me some gear and a Bowflex now. I’ll see ya at next years Olympia.

108

[quote]Ramo wrote:
Roland:

Your profile says you are 6 feet and 185. Your posts make it sound like you have a high degree of confidence in your knowledge about how to build muscle. Something’s wrong here.

The fact is that unless someone has gone through it themself, actually building a large amount of muscle mass, they have no place talking as though they are some kind of flippin expert.

You are not saying anything that I can’t read in an article on this site; only the people who write for this site say it much better, have some credibility, and either carry some muscle themselves, or have shown they can put it on other people.

This is a great website. It has more information than anyone could ever use in a training career. But this is the downside. I guess it goes along with the fact that the site is supported by a supplement company trying to increase its customer base, but you end up with a bunch of schmoes who have no idea what they’re talking about lecturing people. It’s absurd.

All you can do, I guess, is ask people not to offer training and nutritional instruction unless they are qualified. It wouldn’t work of course, because people read some articles and think they are strength coaches. It’s profoundly irritating.

I think it would be good manners, at least, if before offering your insights into training, nutritional, or other intracacies related to physique/performance enhancement, you provide some small indication of why your opinion is worth anything at all.

Too harsh? Maybe. But this is getting ridiculous. I remember when there were serious strength athletes who frequented this site regularly. There are still a few, but nothing like the old days. And all you armchair lifters, all you people who are 6’0, 185 trying to teach people how to build muscle, you are the reason why. Hope it makes you happy.[/quote]

Ramo, that is so hurting my feelings. lol. I will respond to say that if you read my profile, you’d know that I don’t list my weight. I listed 185 as a final goal after coming back from serious injuries. Read more on that profile link, I’m a veteran that has been much larger at times (depends on how active I was in the ring and what weight class I was fighting in), and trained many others.

If you wish to focus on someones weight and not their experience, I respect that, it will pay dividends in the long run for sure. I believe it is more productive to focus on someone who has proven results. Again, it is a matter of focus, focusing on what matters more and you cannot go wrong. I assume that is why you mentioned it wise to read the coaches here, they have proven results, I do not, either do you.

The trouble with this beautiful technological advancement called the Internet is there is no accountability. Anything you write, or I, cannot be verified, I wish it could. What does that leave us? Only with critical thinking skills and reason.

Do you have that ability? Can you read Thib’s article and his post article clarifications and really still say his is way off? Can you evaluate the posts I made and give a logical response? It seems you can only divert the discussion to a personal attack… not really, I don’t think it was.

Let’s just say then that instead of rebutting what I said, you chose to bring up my weight. That shows me either you didn’t read my posts or you didn’t understand them, or you don’t care about intelligent discussion.

As for the fact that you can read the articles here and you don’t need anyone reiterating them, then why do you post? Everyone else can read the articles here just as you. Why have a forum?

Ramo, you are someone who has misses the point of any forum. They are to discuss, with ideas and thoughts that stand on their own merits. Attack an argument’s premises or conclusions, anything else reveals your lack of intelligence.

Roland

109

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ramo wrote:

Roland:

Your profile says you are 6 feet and 185. Your posts make it sound like you have a high degree of confidence in your knowledge about how to build muscle. Something’s wrong here.

The fact is that unless someone has gone through it themself, actually building a large amount of muscle mass, they have no place talking as though they are some kind of flippin expert.

You are not saying anything that I can’t read in an article on this site; only the people who write for this site say it much better, have some credibility, and either carry some muscle themselves, or have shown they can put it on other people.

This is a great website. It has more information than anyone could ever use in a training career. But this is the downside. I guess it goes along with the fact that the site is supported by a supplement company trying to increase its customer base, but you end up with a bunch of schmoes who have no idea what they’re talking about lecturing people. It’s absurd.

All you can do, I guess, is ask people not to offer training and nutritional instruction unless they are qualified. It wouldn’t work of course, because people read some articles and think they are strength coaches. It’s profoundly irritating.

I think it would be good manners, at least, if before offering your insights into training, nutritional, or other intracacies related to physique/performance enhancement, you provide some small indication of why your opinion is worth anything at all.

Too harsh? Maybe. But this is getting ridiculous. I remember when there were serious strength athletes who frequented this site regularly. There are still a few, but nothing like the old days. And all you armchair lifters, all you people who are 6’0, 185 trying to teach people how to build muscle, you are the reason why. Hope it makes you happy.

Best. Post. It kept me from writing something similar. The last thing I need is lifting advice from someone who is smaller than I was after one year of training seriously. It seems as if the ones screaming about how much muscle they can gain while never gaining any body fat at all are carrying the LEAST amount of muscle. [/quote]

Hello Professor,

Professor, I don’t think I posted anything that is contrary to things you’ve posted. Did you read my posts? I know that you’re busy with your practice and may not have time to read posts fully, but where did I say I, or anyone, can gain lots of mass without adding fat? I didn’t.

I’m for bulking! Just not so much that a person turns into a blimp. You yourself have done an incredible job of doing exactly what I espouse. You didn’t get fat! So why the support of a post that revealed the poster’s lack of ability to reason?

If I may guess it is because you’ve spent years on this forum arguing with skinny kids that don’t have a clue. From that experience alone, I can imagine a great bit of frustrating building. Am I skinny? Yep!

Skinny fat is more like it, the worst combo ever. Was I always skinny? Yes and no, yes by your standard, no by many others. Should you listen to my advice? No, of course not, I have more to learn from you than the other way.

In fact I’ve not given any advise on this thread. Should you listen to reason? Of course! So please, read my posts, comment if you wish, but attack the premises or conclusions. If you do, you’d realise I have been arguing the same type of bulking that you’ve expressed many times here. Gain as much muscle as fast as possible and no more. That will add fat, adding more calories is excessive.

Roland

110

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
This is definitely an interesting discussion, and I’m always eager to hear other people’s opinions about it, since the only success I’ve had in gaining muscle was to bulk, and then lose the fat afterwards.

However, I really think its important to remember that CT’s article was meant for the “look good nekkid” crowd who like to stare longingly at themselves in the mirror and flex their glutes. If you don’t want to EVER get a little chunky, then you still have a chance of getting bigger, BUT you have to monitor calories, bodyweight, and BF closely or else fail. At least I think that was CT’s point.

Now, those of us who are not going to cry over losing our ripped abs for a few months can just eat a ton and get bigger all around, and then lean out later. Sure, mathematically its not the most efficient way, but it works, and more importantly it allows you to do other things with your life than count calories and measure bodyfat.

But, using Dave Tate to argue for bulking is a bit misleading, seeing as how he NEVER considered aesthetics during his carreer as a powerlifter. Of course, if you take someone who can lift as much as Tate, and make them go on a diet, they are going to look ripped. But that has nothing to do with CT’s article.

Anyhow, I am definitely still going to eat a ton when I want to gain mass, but I still appreciate CT’s article, since it was a new way of looking at bulking.

Of course, with arguments of this nature, the middle ground is usually ignored, even though the most reasonable conclusion is floating around in there. Somewhere between Tate’s 20 year powerlifting bulk phase and the bodybuilder who trembles in fear at gaining more that 0.25 lbs per week is a reasonable bulking strategy.[/quote]

Over five years, 0.25 pounds a week equals 65 pounds of muscle.

111

But Roland–

What point is optimal? You can not tell me. CT can not tell me. The prof. will try to tell me, but he doesn’t know either.

For this reason alone it is almost necessary to add fat. Because if you’re gaurding that line so close, you lose, or at least limit, the ability of the body to build muscle.

That is where evaluation and adjusting come in. So yah, the idea is to gain as little fat as possible as you bulk, trying to bulk without fat gain is an act of futility.

112

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
But Roland–

What point is optimal? You can not tell me. CT can not tell me. The prof. will try to tell me, but he doesn’t know either.

For this reason alone it is almost necessary to add fat. Because if you’re gaurding that line so close, you lose, or at least limit, the ability of the body to build muscle.

That is where evaluation and adjusting come in. So yah, the idea is to gain as little fat as possible as you bulk, trying to bulk without fat gain is an act of futility.[/quote]

This is precisely what I was saying on the last page. Physiologically speaking there probably is a precise sweet spot somewhere for each individual, but we are not even close to being able to even define that yet nevermind being able to do it even if we did know what it was.

In the meantime we are stuck having to intelligently overdo it if optimal gains are the goal.

113

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
But Roland–

What point is optimal? You can not tell me. CT can not tell me. The prof. will try to tell me, but he doesn’t know either.

For this reason alone it is almost necessary to add fat. Because if you’re gaurding that line so close, you lose, or at least limit, the ability of the body to build muscle.

That is where evaluation and adjusting come in. So yah, the idea is to gain as little fat as possible as you bulk, trying to bulk without fat gain is an act of futility.[/quote]

I agree with you 100%

We cannot know where the line is. Which is why I suggest that we measure our BF% once a month or so while eating enough to gain weight and strength. If we find that by adding more calories we don’t increase or rate of strength gain and the calipers tell us we didn’t increase our muscle mass, but we did gain weight, we have clearly crossed the line.

After crossing the line we may choose to scale back on calories or simply stay there until either rate of strength gain decreases, or the calipers tell us we didn’t gain as much muscle as before.

Will we get fatter doing this? Of course. I’ve never said we shouldn’t add fat when gaining. All that I suggest is that if we monitor rate of strength gain and occasionally do a body comp., we will be able to stay relatively close to that fine line.

There are problems with this of course. If we slow our strength gains due to program design, or stagnation, then adding calories won’t help. That is why the occasional body comp. helps.

Is it an exactly precise method? No. I would never suggest we spend our life analyzing, but it does allow us to be more aware of the calories we need without going very far over that line.

I think that people mistake my point because I said that I don’t like to go much past 12% or so. I had reasons, one is I needed to stay relatively close to my weight classes. The other is that if I stayed close to that elusive thin line, then a cut once a year for a month or two doesn’t hurt. Each time I did it I maintained all the muscle and the next cycle of gaining/bulking still worked as well as before.

Does that mean I would have gained more muscle by staying on the bulk for a couple of years? Sure, but I would also have gained the same proportion of fat and the cut would have taken longer. In the end, both work about the same and I wouldn’t have been able to fight, or stay as lean doing a long bulk.

By the way I only fought once or twice a year, anyone fighting more would have to take a very different strategy.

Roland

114

[quote]swordthrower wrote:
This is definitely an interesting discussion, and I’m always eager to hear other people’s opinions about it, since the only success I’ve had in gaining muscle was to bulk, and then lose the fat afterwards.

However, I really think its important to remember that CT’s article was meant for the “look good nekkid” crowd who like to stare longingly at themselves in the mirror and flex their glutes. If you don’t want to EVER get a little chunky, then you still have a chance of getting bigger, BUT you have to monitor calories, bodyweight, and BF closely or else fail. At least I think that was CT’s point.

Now, those of us who are not going to cry over losing our ripped abs for a few months can just eat a ton and get bigger all around, and then lean out later. Sure, mathematically its not the most efficient way, but it works, and more importantly it allows you to do other things with your life than count calories and measure bodyfat.

But, using Dave Tate to argue for bulking is a bit misleading, seeing as how he NEVER considered aesthetics during his carreer as a powerlifter. Of course, if you take someone who can lift as much as Tate, and make them go on a diet, they are going to look ripped. But that has nothing to do with CT’s article.

Anyhow, I am definitely still going to eat a ton when I want to gain mass, but I still appreciate CT’s article, since it was a new way of looking at bulking.

Of course, with arguments of this nature, the middle ground is usually ignored, even though the most reasonable conclusion is floating around in there. Somewhere between Tate’s 20 year powerlifting bulk phase and the bodybuilder who trembles in fear at gaining more that 0.25 lbs per week is a reasonable bulking strategy.[/quote]

I didn’t mention it before, because I thought it was self-evident, but this is the best post on this thread.

Roland

115

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is precisely what I was saying on the last page. Physiologically speaking there probably is a precise sweet spot somewhere for each individual, but we are not even close to being able to even define that yet nevermind being able to do it even if we did know what it was.

In the meantime we are stuck having to intelligently overdo it if optimal gains are the goal. [/quote]

I agree 100% with this as well. The key is intelligently overdoing it.

Roland

116

[quote]Moomin wrote:
Over five years, 0.25 pounds a week equals 65 pounds of muscle.
[/quote]

This is another minor point of contention for me. Numbers like this are fine for points of discussion, but they’re educated guesses at best and should not be taken as canonical truth like they all too often are.

Nobody’s going to disagree that there are limits to how much can be gained how fast, but too many guys are inadvertently limiting themselves because they are riding somebody’s numbers instead of their own individually discovered capabilities.

Especially when they become satisfied with the low end. CT says .25 to .5 a month. That’s a sensible range, but a 100% difference and I’m betting most young healthy guys could reliably cruise along at the reasonable 25 pounds a year level for at least awhile and some higher than that.

Many don’t though because they fall into that range and figure that’s the best they can hope for and why jeopardize those abs if you won’t get you any more anyway.

117

[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
But Roland–

What point is optimal? You can not tell me. CT can not tell me. The prof. will try to tell me, but he doesn’t know either.

For this reason alone it is almost necessary to add fat. Because if you’re gaurding that line so close, you lose, or at least limit, the ability of the body to build muscle.

That is where evaluation and adjusting come in. So yah, the idea is to gain as little fat as possible as you bulk, trying to bulk without fat gain is an act of futility.

I agree with you 100%

We cannot know where the line is. Which is why I suggest that we measure our BF% once a month or so while eating enough to gain weight and strength. If we find that by adding more calories we don’t increase or rate of strength gain and the calipers tell us we didn’t increase our muscle mass, but we did gain weight, we have clearly crossed the line.

After crossing the line we may choose to scale back on calories or simply stay there until either rate of strength gain decreases, or the calipers tell us we didn’t gain as much muscle as before.

Will we get fatter doing this? Of course. I’ve never said we shouldn’t add fat when gaining. All that I suggest is that if we monitor rate of strength gain and occasionally do a body comp., we will be able to stay relatively close to that fine line.

There are problems with this of course. If we slow our strength gains due to program design, or stagnation, then adding calories won’t help. That is why the occasional body comp. helps.

Is it an exactly precise method? No. I would never suggest we spend our life analyzing, but it does allow us to be more aware of the calories we need without going very far over that line.

I think that people mistake my point because I said that I don’t like to go much past 12% or so. I had reasons, one is I needed to stay relatively close to my weight classes. The other is that if I stayed close to that elusive thin line, then a cut once a year for a month or two doesn’t hurt. Each time I did it I maintained all the muscle and the next cycle of gaining/bulking still worked as well as before.

Does that mean I would have gained more muscle by staying on the bulk for a couple of years? Sure, but I would also have gained the same proportion of fat and the cut would have taken longer. In the end, both work about the same and I wouldn’t have been able to fight, or stay as lean doing a long bulk.

By the way I only fought once or twice a year, anyone fighting more would have to take a very different strategy.

Roland[/quote]

Your body doesn’t grow linearly. You may go a couple of months making very slow progress but then increase in weight and strength rapidly over the course of a week.

The guy holding back on his intake or otherwise not eating enough to supercompensate during that time period would miss out on that period of faster growth. The person getting their body fat percentage checked weekly is no doubt going to fall into the same trap.

If anything, the mirror and pictures should be your greatest tool when gaining along with strength increases. Worrying about the specific numbers too much that often can set you back in the long run in terms of lean body mass. That mass is fluxuent and based on many factors that could skew results from body hydration to how many carbs you took in that week.

118

[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is precisely what I was saying on the last page. Physiologically speaking there probably is a precise sweet spot somewhere for each individual, but we are not even close to being able to even define that yet nevermind being able to do it even if we did know what it was.

In the meantime we are stuck having to intelligently overdo it if optimal gains are the goal.

I agree 100% with this as well. The key is intelligently overdoing it.

Roland[/quote]

You can’t seem to grasp this concept–and I’m bored because my family is gone for Thanksgiving–so let me ask you again.

What is optimal?

Quantify ‘intelligently overdoin it?’

If we knew that the day after we did (x) that (y) would occur that would simplify the process. We can not. Many will tell you that some of their greatest growth came when they actually stopped doing heavy work and periodozed back.

You must eat and supply the body of nutrients so that when growth is occurring you can then maximize those results.

119

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Your body doesn’t grow linearly. You may go a couple of months making very slow progress but then increase in weight and strength rapidly over the course of a week.

The guy holding back on his intake or otherwise not eating enough to supercompensate during that time period would miss out on that period of faster growth. The person getting their body fat percentage checked weekly is no doubt going to fall into the same trap.

If anything, the mirror and pictures should be your greatest tool when gaining along with strength increases. Worrying about the specific numbers too much that often can set you back in the long run in terms of lean body mass. That mass is fluxuent and based on many factors that could skew results from body hydration to how many carbs you took in that week.[/quote]

Very true on all points. A body comp. monthly isn’t a bad idea, but it is unnecessary. All it does is gives feedback that over the long run can indicate to someone if they are doing better by gaining say on average 4 pound a month or maybe 3, or possibly 5, or what ever works for them.

In the end I think our approaches are quite a bit more alike than dissimilar. The only real difference that I can see is I put some value on doing a body comp. once a month or so. Can the mirror tell you the same thing? I think so, but I found that the mirror wasn’t quite as good as using the mirror as well as the calipers. How much different? Not much.

Roland

120

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
This is precisely what I was saying on the last page. Physiologically speaking there probably is a precise sweet spot somewhere for each individual, but we are not even close to being able to even define that yet nevermind being able to do it even if we did know what it was.

In the meantime we are stuck having to intelligently overdo it if optimal gains are the goal.

I agree 100% with this as well. The key is intelligently overdoing it.

Roland

You can’t seem to grasp this concept–and I’m bored because my family is gone for Thanksgiving–so let me ask you again.

What is optimal?

Quantify ‘intelligently overdoin it?’

If we knew that the day after we did (x) that (y) would occur that would simplify the process. We can not. Many will tell you that some of their greatest growth came when they actually stopped doing heavy work and periodozed back.

You must eat and supply the body of nutrients so that when growth is occurring you can then maximize those results.[/quote]

Umm… sasquatch, I agreed with you. It was you that said all we can do is intelligently overdo it.

EDIT: Sorry, I mixed up posts, it was Tiribulus that said ‘intellegently overdo it’

I suspect that you have great experience with it. I have found success with eating enough to gain about 3 pounds a month on average, supported by the fact that any less and I noticed that the rate of strength decreased, and I hit sticking points more often. Also, the calipers seemed to support my conclusion.

Is 3 pounds good? Hell no! But when I went higher it just didn’t work any better for me. I started at 6 feet and 137 pounds, getting up to 190 ish took a long time. Some months I’d not gain anything, a rare few times I’d gain around 6 pounds. Both cases had the same calorie range. However if I kept my calories aimed at 3 pounds a month, it worked.

I did experiment with going higher for a few months, all I did was get too fat. So I scaled back. It isn’t to hard to find a range that works for the individual. I guess that is why I agreed with your statement that all we can do is intelligently over do it.

I look in the mirror and use a caliper once a month or so, how do you ‘intelligently do it’? I suspect you know when you are eating too much, you’re a beast with years of experience.

As for not “grasping it”, I responded to you earlier, so maybe you can see that I don’t, but I suspect you didn’t critically read my posts.

Roland