'Wasting' Gains

Training Bodybuilding
61

[quote]forlife wrote:
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 disagree.

The reaction you are confusing, is with people that haven’t put any appreciable size on at all, getting super lean, and thinking they are god’s gift.

No one on this board advises people to become fat. If you take people’s advice that way, it is a problem on your end. I’m not going to repeat or explain what is being communicated, because if you didn’t get it by now, you never will.

62

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[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
[/quote]

oh, oops my bad.

lol

63

[quote]pumped340 wrote:
I had thought about this in the past, and it probably wouldn’t change much in what I do, but what do you guys think about the idea that some gains would be wasted during a cut, and therefore you might put off training something?

For instance, lets say you never worked legs before and then after a few years you decided to take a few months to lean down. Would it make sense to hold off on training legs for that time since they likely wouldn’t grow much while losing weight but would probably grow pretty rapidly when you began gaining again?

I mean you might get some growth during the cut but obviously nowhere near if you were gaining. At some point strength is going to be limited so maybe it would be better to wait until you can gain the most leg size from that first 50-100lb increase in squats than just not really going anywhere for a few months.

On a similar note, Thibs has mentioned how people shouldn’t do IBB during a cut. Part of that is the recovery issue but also there’s the fact that you just wouldn’t see as good of results that way. What do you guys think??

[/quote]

I think a lot of people are trying to point out that if you quit training your legs you miss out on all the endocrine responses that you get from training legs. Not training your legs would be like committing suicide in a bodybuilding sense, because even if you are cutting you need to resistance traini IOT keep size on. Lifting helps spare protein from being degraded while lifting, preventing it from being used for fuel. If you were to stop all leg training you’re left with very few options as far as big calorie burning / endocrine response exercises. What kind of exercises elicit the best hormone responses within the body…squats, deadlifts, etc. Throwing those exercises away is counter productive. My 0.02…

v/r

Gremlin

64

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.[/quote]

x2

I’m not trying to knock anyones progress or discourage them but the exact same thing goes through my head, especially with some of the pics in the bicep threads…

Guy A has 18 inch arms with a good amount of body fat and you could barely distinguish his biceps from his shoulders.

Guy B has 16.5 inch arms and he is clearly ripped.

Logically thinking, it’s safe to say if guy A were to ever cut and get as ripped as guy B they biceps would probably be the same size.

To me there is no difference between these two when it comes to muscle, however on this site Guy A is always seen as superior.

65

[quote]angus_beef wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.[/quote]

x2

I’m not trying to knock anyones progress or discourage them but the exact same thing goes through my head, especially with some of the pics in the bicep threads…

Guy A has 18 inch arms with a good amount of body fat and you could barely distinguish his biceps from his shoulders.

Guy B has 16.5 inch arms and he is clearly ripped.

Logically thinking, it’s safe to say if guy A were to ever cut and get as ripped as guy B they biceps would probably be the same size.

To me there is no difference between these two when it comes to muscle, however on this site Guy A is always seen as superior.[/quote]

Here is the problem with this website, it’s that bone heads can not interpret what is being said when given direction.

People also can not decipher who certain advices are being directed towards. Not speaking about you directly, just in general.

Now Professor X, or any of the other respected memebers here, do not advocate to get fat. They are encouraging those making NO progress, who are worried about staying “in shape,” when they have little shape to begin with, to loosen up with their diet, to eat more, and to not be afraid to put on some fat as long as they ARE gaining muscle.

Very simple concept made so hard by everyone.

I’ll admit I have had some shitty pics in some of my threads, but my avatar speaks for itself, my bicep does not look sloppy.

66

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:

[quote]angus_beef wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.[/quote]

x2

I’m not trying to knock anyones progress or discourage them but the exact same thing goes through my head, especially with some of the pics in the bicep threads…

Guy A has 18 inch arms with a good amount of body fat and you could barely distinguish his biceps from his shoulders.

Guy B has 16.5 inch arms and he is clearly ripped.

Logically thinking, it’s safe to say if guy A were to ever cut and get as ripped as guy B they biceps would probably be the same size.

To me there is no difference between these two when it comes to muscle, however on this site Guy A is always seen as superior.[/quote]

Here is the problem with this website, it’s that bone heads can not interpret what is being said when given direction.

People also can not decipher who certain advices are being directed towards. Not speaking about you directly, just in general.

Now Professor X, or any of the other respected memebers here, do not advocate to get fat. They are encouraging those making NO progress, who are worried about staying “in shape,” when they have little shape to begin with, to loosen up with their diet, to eat more, and to not be afraid to put on some fat as long as they ARE gaining muscle.

Very simple concept made so hard by everyone.

I’ll admit I have had some shitty pics in some of my threads, but my avatar speaks for itself, my bicep does not look sloppy.[/quote]

HAHA… You know i was about 97 % sure you would think this scenario was directed towards you…I played around with the numbers a little before i actually posted due to that fact… But i decided to go with 18 inches.

it wasn’t directed towards you buddy, i do see your avatar and i’ve watched a couple of your vids as well… I know you’re about your bizness.

This has nothing to do with skinny guys trying to keep abs… i was just making the point that is seems no one really takes into account body fat when comparing a guy with 16.5 inch arms to a guy with 18 inch arms.

67

[quote]angus_beef wrote:

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:

[quote]angus_beef wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.[/quote]

x2

I’m not trying to knock anyones progress or discourage them but the exact same thing goes through my head, especially with some of the pics in the bicep threads…

Guy A has 18 inch arms with a good amount of body fat and you could barely distinguish his biceps from his shoulders.

Guy B has 16.5 inch arms and he is clearly ripped.

Logically thinking, it’s safe to say if guy A were to ever cut and get as ripped as guy B they biceps would probably be the same size.

To me there is no difference between these two when it comes to muscle, however on this site Guy A is always seen as superior.[/quote]

Here is the problem with this website, it’s that bone heads can not interpret what is being said when given direction.

People also can not decipher who certain advices are being directed towards. Not speaking about you directly, just in general.

Now Professor X, or any of the other respected memebers here, do not advocate to get fat. They are encouraging those making NO progress, who are worried about staying “in shape,” when they have little shape to begin with, to loosen up with their diet, to eat more, and to not be afraid to put on some fat as long as they ARE gaining muscle.

Very simple concept made so hard by everyone.

I’ll admit I have had some shitty pics in some of my threads, but my avatar speaks for itself, my bicep does not look sloppy.[/quote]

HAHA… You know i was about 97 % sure you would think this scenario was directed towards you…I played around with the numbers a little before i actually posted due to that fact… But i decided to go with 18 inches.

it wasn’t directed towards you buddy, i do see your avatar and i’ve watched a couple of your vids as well… I know you’re about your bizness.

This has nothing to do with skinny guys trying to keep abs… i was just making the point that is seems no one really takes into account body fat when comparing a guy with 16.5 inch arms to a guy with 18 inch arms.

[/quote]

Nah I know man and I agree.

68

[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]

You should realize that just because youre big doesnt mean you have to push big weights all the time. Sure, there are big guys at my gym, and when Im next to them doing the same lift I may be using more weight, but that doesnt mean Im stronger than them. Dont discount things like tempo, total reps, or warm-up sets as the reason they “lift less” than you do. Plus, I see guys who are AT-STs that can destroy me in squat…allegedly…but then again we’re comparing my full squat to their 1/16th squat. If theyre that much bigger than you though maybe you should ask how they got there no? They might just shed some light on why they “lift less” then you do.

69

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:

[quote]angus_beef wrote:

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:

[quote]angus_beef wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.[/quote]

x2

I’m not trying to knock anyones progress or discourage them but the exact same thing goes through my head, especially with some of the pics in the bicep threads…

Guy A has 18 inch arms with a good amount of body fat and you could barely distinguish his biceps from his shoulders.

Guy B has 16.5 inch arms and he is clearly ripped.

Logically thinking, it’s safe to say if guy A were to ever cut and get as ripped as guy B they biceps would probably be the same size.

To me there is no difference between these two when it comes to muscle, however on this site Guy A is always seen as superior.[/quote]

Here is the problem with this website, it’s that bone heads can not interpret what is being said when given direction.

People also can not decipher who certain advices are being directed towards. Not speaking about you directly, just in general.

Now Professor X, or any of the other respected memebers here, do not advocate to get fat. They are encouraging those making NO progress, who are worried about staying “in shape,” when they have little shape to begin with, to loosen up with their diet, to eat more, and to not be afraid to put on some fat as long as they ARE gaining muscle.

Very simple concept made so hard by everyone.

I’ll admit I have had some shitty pics in some of my threads, but my avatar speaks for itself, my bicep does not look sloppy.[/quote]

HAHA… You know i was about 97 % sure you would think this scenario was directed towards you…I played around with the numbers a little before i actually posted due to that fact… But i decided to go with 18 inches.

it wasn’t directed towards you buddy, i do see your avatar and i’ve watched a couple of your vids as well… I know you’re about your bizness.

This has nothing to do with skinny guys trying to keep abs… i was just making the point that is seems no one really takes into account body fat when comparing a guy with 16.5 inch arms to a guy with 18 inch arms.

[/quote]

Nah I know man and I agree.[/quote]

I completely disagree. Anyone who is respected on this website knows the difference between a fat 18" arm and a ripped 16.5" arm.

70

[quote]Htowner wrote:
You should realize that just because youre big doesnt mean you have to push big weights all the time. Sure, there are big guys at my gym, and when Im next to them doing the same lift I may be using more weight, but that doesnt mean Im stronger than them. Dont discount things like tempo, total reps, or warm-up sets as the reason they “lift less” than you do. Plus, I see guys who are AT-STs that can destroy me in squat…allegedly…but then again we’re comparing my full squat to their 1/16th squat. If theyre that much bigger than you though maybe you should ask how they got there no? They might just shed some light on why they “lift less” then you do.
[/quote]

In principle, I agree with you. I was referring to guys that you workout with on a daily basis for years, so you know their routines pretty well.

My point was that size can be misleading, and that it doesn’t always equate to strength. Yes, as a general rule you have to be big in order to be strong. But just because you’re big doesn’t make you strong.

It seems obvious, but I think people sometimes forget that fact when tossing around numbers on the boards. At the end of the day, it’s not about the circumference of your arms so much as it is about how much weight you can move with those arms.

71

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
Itd be nice if you didnt miss the underhanded swipe at bodybuilders next time. You make “us” look stupidz
[/quote]

It was a swipe at people that think they can define “bodybuilder” for the rest of the world, and that disparage others who don’t share their identical definition.

72

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:

[quote]angus_beef wrote:

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:

[quote]angus_beef wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.[/quote]

x2

I’m not trying to knock anyones progress or discourage them but the exact same thing goes through my head, especially with some of the pics in the bicep threads…

Guy A has 18 inch arms with a good amount of body fat and you could barely distinguish his biceps from his shoulders.

Guy B has 16.5 inch arms and he is clearly ripped.

Logically thinking, it’s safe to say if guy A were to ever cut and get as ripped as guy B they biceps would probably be the same size.

To me there is no difference between these two when it comes to muscle, however on this site Guy A is always seen as superior.[/quote]

Here is the problem with this website, it’s that bone heads can not interpret what is being said when given direction.

People also can not decipher who certain advices are being directed towards. Not speaking about you directly, just in general.

Now Professor X, or any of the other respected memebers here, do not advocate to get fat. They are encouraging those making NO progress, who are worried about staying “in shape,” when they have little shape to begin with, to loosen up with their diet, to eat more, and to not be afraid to put on some fat as long as they ARE gaining muscle.

Very simple concept made so hard by everyone.

I’ll admit I have had some shitty pics in some of my threads, but my avatar speaks for itself, my bicep does not look sloppy.[/quote]

HAHA… You know i was about 97 % sure you would think this scenario was directed towards you…I played around with the numbers a little before i actually posted due to that fact… But i decided to go with 18 inches.

it wasn’t directed towards you buddy, i do see your avatar and i’ve watched a couple of your vids as well… I know you’re about your bizness.

This has nothing to do with skinny guys trying to keep abs… i was just making the point that is seems no one really takes into account body fat when comparing a guy with 16.5 inch arms to a guy with 18 inch arms.

[/quote]

Nah I know man and I agree.[/quote]

I completely disagree. Anyone who is respected on this website knows the difference between a fat 18" arm and a ripped 16.5" arm.[/quote]

I agree with that too, but it seems the respected individuals are also the minority.

73

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I disagree.

The reaction you are confusing, is with people that haven’t put any appreciable size on at all, getting super lean, and thinking they are god’s gift.

No one on this board advises people to become fat. If you take people’s advice that way, it is a problem on your end. I’m not going to repeat or explain what is being communicated, because if you didn’t get it by now, you never will.
[/quote]

I’ve followed the boards long enough to know none of the respected posters advocate gaining weight at all costs, regardless of how much fat you put on in the process. I never suggested this.

What I did say was that there is a philosophical bias on this board against lifters that prefer to stay relatively lean while putting on muscle at a slower rate. They (we) aren’t considered to be “true bodybuilders”, despite making steady gains in our lifts, because those gains aren’t as high as they would be if we were more willing to put on fat.

74

[quote]forlife wrote:
They (we) aren’t considered to be “true bodybuilders”, despite making steady gains in our lifts, because those gains aren’t as high as they would be if we were more willing to put on fat.[/quote]

I think you might be mistaken, I see Bonez, Kingbeef and a couple others praised all the time…

Maybe YOU aren’t considered what you want to be considered, because no one knows what progress you’ve made.

You can’t expect people to swing from your nuts without some sort of public progress. You have no pics no vids and no numbers. Also, unlike C_C, you don’t have like 6,000 quality posts…

So what do you expect people to say?

If you want your progress respected, you kinda have to show some results.

75

[quote]forlife wrote:
At the end of the day, it’s not about the circumference of your arms so much as it is about how much weight you can move with those arms.[/quote]

?

In the context of bodybuilding, how is that not backwards?

76

[quote]Htowner wrote:
Plus, I see guys who are AT-STs that can destroy me in squat…
[/quote]

Haha, nice one. I don’t think anyone else caught that.

77

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If you want your progress respected, you kinda have to show some results.[/quote]

Please point out where I asked to have my progress respected. I couldn’t care less what you think about my progress.

I was making a statement about the general philosophy I’ve seen on this board after following it for 5 years.

78

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
?

In the context of bodybuilding, how is that not backwards?

[/quote]

It’s not rocket science. Girth doesn’t always equal muscle.

Girth from muscle = good.

Girth from fat = bad.

Sometimes people confuse the two, particularly people that crow about having size X arms/legs without providing lifting numbers to back it up, and people that insist you have to weigh X pounds in order to be considered a “true bodybuilder”.

79

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
At the end of the day, it’s not about the circumference of your arms so much as it is about how much weight you can move with those arms.[/quote]

?

In the context of bodybuilding, how is that not backwards?

[/quote]

Though I dont think you should strictly define bodybuilding as trying to put on the most mass possible, it should at least include in some way, shape, or form include the pursuit to look better physically. To me bodybuilding is the sculpting of one’s body to one’s own definition of beauty. Lifting heavy weights is a means to that end, not the actual end. Lifting heavy weights is the end in powerlifting, or strong man competitions. Thus, circumference of the arm does matter, because that is the physical manifestation of lifting weights. Without gains in size or symmetry bodybuilding would not exist. Instead you would just be simply lifting weights.

80

[quote]BJack wrote:

[quote]Htowner wrote:
Plus, I see guys who are AT-STs that can destroy me in squat…
[/quote]

Haha, nice one. I don’t think anyone else caught that.[/quote]

Ahhhhh! The Star Wars nerd in me leaked out again =P