[quote]trav123456 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Like ranch dressing.
[/quote]
I prefer thousand island, ranch tastes too vinegary[/quote]
Isn’t the sauce on a big mac just thousand island and relish?
[quote]That One Guy wrote:
You’re rationalizing…because you’re a pussy. Basically.[/quote]
Awesome. Going to add that to the wall in my weight room.
this is the stupidest thing I’ve seen thus far on the bodybuilding forum. What will they think up next?
Pumped I think I hate you
[quote]gethuge911 wrote:
Pumped I think I hate you[/quote]
Nice first post.
Can’t we all just get along? 
[quote]forlife wrote:
Can’t we all just get along? ;)[/quote]
Does the Pope protect pedophiles?
Only if they’re up to date on paying their indulgences.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Only if they’re up to date on paying their indulgences.[/quote]
Do little boys count as an indulgence for them?
[quote]Scott M wrote:
In terms of a hypothetical looking at this in a vacuum one could assume that taking two twins that have never trained their legs before
Twin A starts training legs during a diet phase, let’s say 4 months to get pretty lean.
Twin B waits 4 months during diet to “not waste gains”
And we look at leg progress of both at the end of 8 additional months(12 total for my non genius friends)
My thought is Twin B will make faster progress in terms of those first couple months of training legs(months 5-9) than Twin A did with 1-4, but in terms of OVERALL progress Twin B would be far and away ahead. Why this matters I’ve got no clue but thought I’d type out a rambling response to a silly question.
The great travesty of bodybuilding is the gym part is only 3-6 hours a week and it gives people way too long to ponder stuff that doesn’t effect them lol. [/quote]
Lol, I don’t know about anyone else but I like talking about things like this. People get frustrated when any topics/questions come up that aren’t straight up or typical, but then when typical questions are asked they get frustrated that the same questions are being asked. I don’t get why those people are even on the boards then…or at least in the thread. I ask questions all the time in BBing and other areas of life even if it doesn’t affect me, because I just think it’s interesting.
Anyway regarding your post I agree from a strength standpoint and looking in the short term person A would be ahead. But lets say over the course of your career you can add 400lb to your squat, it seems logical that your legs would grow more from being in a surplus the entire time you gained that strength compared to if half the time you were in a cut with limited/no size gains. Obviously there are other factors (and maybe the size gains after the cuts would be greater if 200lb of that strength was put on throughout the cuts so it would even out anyway?) but its interesting IMO.
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Yeah, seriously. I’m on a cut right now and interestingly enough, I’m still getting stronger as I’m getting leaner. If you can’t gain strength while on a cut (obviously excluding being just a few weeks out from competition) then you’re probably doing something wrong.[/quote]
I’m not saying you couldn’t gain strength during a cut, of course you could. But the amount of muscle gained would be much less than if you made the strength gains during a surplus
[quote]pumped340 wrote:
[quote]Scott M wrote:
In terms of a hypothetical looking at this in a vacuum one could assume that taking two twins that have never trained their legs before
Twin A starts training legs during a diet phase, let’s say 4 months to get pretty lean.
Twin B waits 4 months during diet to “not waste gains”
And we look at leg progress of both at the end of 8 additional months(12 total for my non genius friends)
My thought is Twin B will make faster progress in terms of those first couple months of training legs(months 5-9) than Twin A did with 1-4, but in terms of OVERALL progress Twin B would be far and away ahead. Why this matters I’ve got no clue but thought I’d type out a rambling response to a silly question.
The great travesty of bodybuilding is the gym part is only 3-6 hours a week and it gives people way too long to ponder stuff that doesn’t effect them lol. [/quote]
Lol, I don’t know about anyone else but I like talking about things like this. People get frustrated when any topics/questions come up that aren’t straight up or typical, but then when typical questions are asked they get frustrated that the same questions are being asked. I don’t get why those people are even on the boards then…or at least in the thread. I ask questions all the time in BBing and other areas of life even if it doesn’t affect me, because I just think it’s interesting.
Anyway regarding your post I agree from a strength standpoint and looking in the short term person A would be ahead. But lets say over the course of your career you can add 400lb to your squat, it seems logical that your legs would grow more from being in a surplus the entire time you gained that strength compared to if half the time you were in a cut with limited/no size gains. Obviously there are other factors (and maybe the size gains after the cuts would be greater if 200lb of that strength was put on throughout the cuts so it would even out anyway?) but its interesting IMO.
[quote]kingbeef323 wrote:
Yeah, seriously. I’m on a cut right now and interestingly enough, I’m still getting stronger as I’m getting leaner. If you can’t gain strength while on a cut (obviously excluding being just a few weeks out from competition) then you’re probably doing something wrong.[/quote]
I’m not saying you couldn’t gain strength during a cut, of course you could. But the amount of muscle gained would be much less than if you made the strength gains during a surplus
[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand your premise. Granted, my reading comprehension skills are terrible, but it seems to me like you’re saying you’d get stronger by just bulking and never cutting. I don’t think that’s anything new, lol.
Well this is all hypothetical but let’s say Person A begins their diet squatting 155x10 for a top set and was able to do 225x10 at the end there. Maybe handling the heavier load when the calories/carbs are reintroduced would cause MORE growth than Person B who is starting at that original 155x10. Who knows really?
You could look at someone like Matt Kroc of an example of a guy who didn’t do much direct arm work(outside of pressing and pulling and the occasional curl) before his diet prep with Shelby. He has said that he’s experienced great growth even with the restricted calories.
Would he have been better off “waiting” till his contest was over? Absolutely not for the short term, and I HIGHLY doubt he’s going to be missing out on growth because he was in a deficit when he started focusing on his “show” muscles. This isn’t the exact same as what you are looking for but I think it’ll illustrate a basic point in terms of progress while dieting.
A guy who ends squats 455x20 deep is going to have monster legs most likely(don’t post about Dr. Ken or his equivalent, I don’t care lol) whether he was dieting while he made any of those strength gains or not. That’s how I see it.
If you place a loaded pistol next to your muscles and say “GROW BITCH” they will grow. There are ways to force your muscles to grow even in a caloric deficit. It sure isn’t optimal but it does and can happen.
Anyway…sometimes I feel like many here just want to be big and strong and have no desire to cut. So why do we not have a general strength forum? I think too many panties get in a wad in this forum because it say “Bodybuilding”.
I’ve seen someone who’s lifted for 10 years follow a lifting, nutrition, and supplement program put on 6lbs of lean mass while dropping fat. From 214 down to 209. Lean mass from 178 to 184. No AAS involved.
Alan
[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
Anyway…sometimes I feel like many here just want to be big and strong and have no desire to cut. So why do we not have a general strength forum? I think too many panties get in a wad in this forum because it say “Bodybuilding”.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t mind seeing a powerlifting/general strength forum like you suggest. I’ve always considered bodybuilding a combination of gaining muscle AND being lean, but there’s such a bias toward the former here that anyone who isn’t willing to put on a lot of fat first is not considered to be a “true bodybuilder”.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
Anyway…sometimes I feel like many here just want to be big and strong and have no desire to cut. So why do we not have a general strength forum? I think too many panties get in a wad in this forum because it say “Bodybuilding”.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t mind seeing a powerlifting/general strength forum like you suggest. I’ve always considered bodybuilding a combination of gaining muscle AND being lean, but there’s such a bias toward the former here that anyone who isn’t willing to put on a lot of fat first is not considered to be a “true bodybuilder”. [/quote]
I think most people here would be truely unimpressed if they actually went to an amateur bodybuilding show. You’ll see a guy onstage who looks HEUUUUGE. Then standing next to him you’re like WTF? Lots of “Oh I’m bigger than that” thinking going on under those 15% bf spectators!..
Alan
[quote]pumped340 wrote:
Lol, I don’t know about anyone else but I like talking about things like this. People get frustrated when any topics/questions come up that aren’t straight up or typical, but then when typical questions are asked they get frustrated that the same questions are being asked. I don’t get why those people are even on the boards then…or at least in the thread. I ask questions all the time in BBing and other areas of life even if it doesn’t affect me, because I just think it’s interesting.
[/quote]
People get frustrated with topics like this because it’s idiocy that noobs might read and actually believe, and then come back six months later whining about their poor development. Sort of like how someone can be sub-200 pounds at six feet tall after several years of training and still want to ponder obscure, minute details without realizing that they are failing at applying the basics.
Oh, wait.
[quote]BantamRunner wrote:
[I think most people here would be truely unimpressed if they actually went to an amateur bodybuilding show. You’ll see a guy onstage who looks HEUUUUGE. Then standing next to him you’re like WTF? Lots of “Oh I’m bigger than that” thinking going on under those 15% bf spectators!..;)[/quote]
Exactly…it’s like the guys who brag about their massive bis and quads without stopping to ask how much of that is fat rather than muscle. I’m regularly surprised by people in the gym who look like they should be able to break me in half, yet lift less than I do. It’s not all about how much you weigh, but about what your weight is actually made of.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m regularly surprised by people in the gym who look like they should be able to break me in half, yet lift less than I do. [/quote]
Where the hell do you lift?
Because I have never seen anyone bigger than me, at any reasonable BF level that didn’t pwn my numbers.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m regularly surprised by people in the gym who look like they should be able to break me in half, yet lift less than I do. [/quote]
Where the hell do you lift?
Because I have never seen anyone bigger than me, at any reasonable BF level that didn’t pwn my numbers.
[/quote]
What are you talkin about. All bodybuilders are weak.
Itd be nice if you didnt miss the underhanded swipe at bodybuilders next time. You make “us” look stupidz