good article
- Thread starter faz
- Start date
The Good
This article emphasizes a slow bulk instead of the normal bulk & cut routines. It's something that I have endorsed since I started HST.
The Bad
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Caloric intake relative to lean body weight to support optimal growth (considering a normal activity level)
Lean Body Weight (total weight — fat weight) -- Caloric Intake to Support Optimal Growth
210lbs -- 4244kcals</div>
What? That's an insane amount of calories for me. A slow bulk would put me at about 2800 calories based on my BMR, and about 3400 with exercise. I would have to be dramatically wrong about my bodyfat%... Let's say I am very wrong about it and it is 20% -- Article says most men can't tell the difference when their bf% is in the teens. 20% bf equates to about 195 lbs which gives me about 3950 calories. That is still way too much.
This article emphasizes a slow bulk instead of the normal bulk & cut routines. It's something that I have endorsed since I started HST.
The Bad
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Caloric intake relative to lean body weight to support optimal growth (considering a normal activity level)
Lean Body Weight (total weight — fat weight) -- Caloric Intake to Support Optimal Growth
210lbs -- 4244kcals</div>
What? That's an insane amount of calories for me. A slow bulk would put me at about 2800 calories based on my BMR, and about 3400 with exercise. I would have to be dramatically wrong about my bodyfat%... Let's say I am very wrong about it and it is 20% -- Article says most men can't tell the difference when their bf% is in the teens. 20% bf equates to about 195 lbs which gives me about 3950 calories. That is still way too much.
I
imported_etothepii
Guest
There's a discussion about this on Lyle's board too. He posted something like this:
All these are good except the partitioning thing. It's crap:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Take Home Messages
• Don't get fat. In my opinion, no man needs to be above 10% body fat, and getting there isn't that hard. It can take time if you carry a lot of fat, but every man can get there and maintain this level.
• You can't bully your body into adding more muscle simply by overeating.
• You can limit your rate of gain by not ingesting enough nutrients. So adding good food if you're lacking in that department will help you gain muscle faster, but past a certain point, continuing to jack up calories will only make you fatter.
• Have realistic expectations. You won't gain 20 pounds of muscle in three months, not even in six months. Gaining 1.5 to 2 pounds of muscle per month is the most you can expect. And for most, gaining more than ten pounds of solid muscle per year (once they're past the beginner stage) will be very rare. However, gain 5-7 pounds per year for ten years straight and you'll be one huge beast!
• Being lean makes it easier to stay lean and to gain muscle through better nutrient partitioning. Getting fatter makes it easier to gain more fat and harder to lose it.
• Trying to gain muscle mass should never be a justification for eating crap. If you want to eat a junk diet, at least have the decency to admit it's because you like your food too much to give it up. Don't try to pass it off as a "bulking diet." Pizzas, Big Macs, and donuts don't have higher anabolic properties than clean food!
</div>
All these are good except the partitioning thing. It's crap:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Take Home Messages
• Don't get fat. In my opinion, no man needs to be above 10% body fat, and getting there isn't that hard. It can take time if you carry a lot of fat, but every man can get there and maintain this level.
• You can't bully your body into adding more muscle simply by overeating.
• You can limit your rate of gain by not ingesting enough nutrients. So adding good food if you're lacking in that department will help you gain muscle faster, but past a certain point, continuing to jack up calories will only make you fatter.
• Have realistic expectations. You won't gain 20 pounds of muscle in three months, not even in six months. Gaining 1.5 to 2 pounds of muscle per month is the most you can expect. And for most, gaining more than ten pounds of solid muscle per year (once they're past the beginner stage) will be very rare. However, gain 5-7 pounds per year for ten years straight and you'll be one huge beast!
• Being lean makes it easier to stay lean and to gain muscle through better nutrient partitioning. Getting fatter makes it easier to gain more fat and harder to lose it.
• Trying to gain muscle mass should never be a justification for eating crap. If you want to eat a junk diet, at least have the decency to admit it's because you like your food too much to give it up. Don't try to pass it off as a "bulking diet." Pizzas, Big Macs, and donuts don't have higher anabolic properties than clean food!
</div>
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(etothepii @ Aug. 29 2007,10:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There's a discussion about this on Lyle's board too. He posted something like this:
All these are good except the partitioning thing. It's crap:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Take Home Messages
• Don't get fat. In my opinion, no man needs to be above 10% body fat, and getting there isn't that hard. It can take time if you carry a lot of fat, but every man can get there and maintain this level.
• You can't bully your body into adding more muscle simply by overeating.
• You can limit your rate of gain by not ingesting enough nutrients. So adding good food if you're lacking in that department will help you gain muscle faster, but past a certain point, continuing to jack up calories will only make you fatter.
• Have realistic expectations. You won't gain 20 pounds of muscle in three months, not even in six months. Gaining 1.5 to 2 pounds of muscle per month is the most you can expect. And for most, gaining more than ten pounds of solid muscle per year (once they're past the beginner stage) will be very rare. However, gain 5-7 pounds per year for ten years straight and you'll be one huge beast!
• Being lean makes it easier to stay lean and to gain muscle through better nutrient partitioning. Getting fatter makes it easier to gain more fat and harder to lose it.
• Trying to gain muscle mass should never be a justification for eating crap. If you want to eat a junk diet, at least have the decency to admit it's because you like your food too much to give it up. Don't try to pass it off as a "bulking diet." Pizzas, Big Macs, and donuts don't have higher anabolic properties than clean food!
</div></div>
In my opinion, his opinion is out of whack.
He wrote "getting to 10% bf isn't that hard". Then he wrote "have realistic expectations". Contradiction.
He wrote "you can't bully muscle growth with overeating" when in fact you can build muscles just by overeating. He wrote "adding food if you're lacking in that department will help you build muscle faster". Contradiction.
He wrote examples of possible gain. I disagree with every single one of them. None of them reflect what I know about muscle growth.
Perhaps his opinion is believable in a context of plateaus and ignorance but over here where the mechanisms of muscle growth are known quantities, his opinion falls apart. For instance, it's easier to reduce fat after having gained muscle. It's very difficult to gain weight past a certain threshold because of the sheer amount of food we must ingest. Indeed, the two statements above are intimately linked. Even his advice on food quality is off. Pizza is good. What isn't good is the sugar. What sugar you ask? The sugar in the cookacoola and peppicoola and the whoopsycoola. Drink water and stick to it, I say. Just don't drink it during a meal if you're bulking.
(etothepii @ Aug. 29 2007,10:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There's a discussion about this on Lyle's board too. He posted something like this:
All these are good except the partitioning thing. It's crap:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Take Home Messages
• Don't get fat. In my opinion, no man needs to be above 10% body fat, and getting there isn't that hard. It can take time if you carry a lot of fat, but every man can get there and maintain this level.
• You can't bully your body into adding more muscle simply by overeating.
• You can limit your rate of gain by not ingesting enough nutrients. So adding good food if you're lacking in that department will help you gain muscle faster, but past a certain point, continuing to jack up calories will only make you fatter.
• Have realistic expectations. You won't gain 20 pounds of muscle in three months, not even in six months. Gaining 1.5 to 2 pounds of muscle per month is the most you can expect. And for most, gaining more than ten pounds of solid muscle per year (once they're past the beginner stage) will be very rare. However, gain 5-7 pounds per year for ten years straight and you'll be one huge beast!
• Being lean makes it easier to stay lean and to gain muscle through better nutrient partitioning. Getting fatter makes it easier to gain more fat and harder to lose it.
• Trying to gain muscle mass should never be a justification for eating crap. If you want to eat a junk diet, at least have the decency to admit it's because you like your food too much to give it up. Don't try to pass it off as a "bulking diet." Pizzas, Big Macs, and donuts don't have higher anabolic properties than clean food!
</div></div>
In my opinion, his opinion is out of whack.
He wrote "getting to 10% bf isn't that hard". Then he wrote "have realistic expectations". Contradiction.
He wrote "you can't bully muscle growth with overeating" when in fact you can build muscles just by overeating. He wrote "adding food if you're lacking in that department will help you build muscle faster". Contradiction.
He wrote examples of possible gain. I disagree with every single one of them. None of them reflect what I know about muscle growth.
Perhaps his opinion is believable in a context of plateaus and ignorance but over here where the mechanisms of muscle growth are known quantities, his opinion falls apart. For instance, it's easier to reduce fat after having gained muscle. It's very difficult to gain weight past a certain threshold because of the sheer amount of food we must ingest. Indeed, the two statements above are intimately linked. Even his advice on food quality is off. Pizza is good. What isn't good is the sugar. What sugar you ask? The sugar in the cookacoola and peppicoola and the whoopsycoola. Drink water and stick to it, I say. Just don't drink it during a meal if you're bulking.
RUSS
Member
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 29 2007,10:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He wrote "you can't bully muscle growth with overeating" when in fact you can build muscles just by overeating.</div>
Good point -think sumo's, and different folks put that "gray area" 5-6% BF at varying degrees of priority . I tend to sit at about 14-18% (educated guesstimate) , I'm 5ft.11 and 245-50 lbs. , can see the top two pack and wear a 36 size pants. This is fine WITH ME . I enjoy my strength and although I know that that 5-6"extra"%BF doesn't neccessarily help put weight on the bar - losing it will (at least temporarily) take some off (the bar). I fit that description of the guy that looks the same but takes up more space because of that "North Dakota insulation" as I like to call it now that affectionately refering to it as "leverage" is no longer in vogue .
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 29 2007,10:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He wrote "you can't bully muscle growth with overeating" when in fact you can build muscles just by overeating.</div>
Good point -think sumo's, and different folks put that "gray area" 5-6% BF at varying degrees of priority . I tend to sit at about 14-18% (educated guesstimate) , I'm 5ft.11 and 245-50 lbs. , can see the top two pack and wear a 36 size pants. This is fine WITH ME . I enjoy my strength and although I know that that 5-6"extra"%BF doesn't neccessarily help put weight on the bar - losing it will (at least temporarily) take some off (the bar). I fit that description of the guy that looks the same but takes up more space because of that "North Dakota insulation" as I like to call it now that affectionately refering to it as "leverage" is no longer in vogue .
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He wrote examples of possible gain. I disagree with every single one of them. None of them reflect what I know about muscle growth.</div>
Well, from what I read he endorsed growth w/o significant fat gains via slow bulk which does work. He did make some unique contradictions within his intro that you did point out.
Well, from what I read he endorsed growth w/o significant fat gains via slow bulk which does work. He did make some unique contradictions within his intro that you did point out.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">• Trying to gain muscle mass should never be a justification for eating crap. If you want to eat a junk diet, at least have the decency to admit it's because you like your food too much to give it up. Don't try to pass it off as a "bulking diet." Pizzas, Big Macs, and donuts don't have higher anabolic properties than clean food!</div>
Goes the other way around too, buddy. There is nothing special about clean food. As long as you get enough protein in, from a muscle building stand-point, it won't matter that much whether the rest of your calories are "clean" or not.
Going by his calorie estimates for bulking, you'd have to make it your job to eat if all those calories were clean - you'd be cooking and eating all day long. That's insane. A more reasonable, middle-of-the-road diet is better in my opinion, easier to follow, easier to hit your calorie goals - it keeps you from going crazy.
Goes the other way around too, buddy. There is nothing special about clean food. As long as you get enough protein in, from a muscle building stand-point, it won't matter that much whether the rest of your calories are "clean" or not.
Going by his calorie estimates for bulking, you'd have to make it your job to eat if all those calories were clean - you'd be cooking and eating all day long. That's insane. A more reasonable, middle-of-the-road diet is better in my opinion, easier to follow, easier to hit your calorie goals - it keeps you from going crazy.
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 30 2007,05:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He wrote "you can't bully muscle growth with overeating" when in fact you can build muscles just by overeating. He wrote "adding food if you're lacking in that department will help you build muscle faster". Contradiction.</div>
no its not
key term "if your lacking"
gaining muscle by just overeating is an interesting concept, but fraught with the implication that what you are talking about is lean body mass, and while muscle is lean body mass, not all lean body mass is muscle.
(Martin Levac @ Aug. 30 2007,05:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">He wrote "you can't bully muscle growth with overeating" when in fact you can build muscles just by overeating. He wrote "adding food if you're lacking in that department will help you build muscle faster". Contradiction.</div>
no its not
key term "if your lacking"
gaining muscle by just overeating is an interesting concept, but fraught with the implication that what you are talking about is lean body mass, and while muscle is lean body mass, not all lean body mass is muscle.
I
imported_etothepii
Guest
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">In my opinion, his opinion is out of whack.
</div>
Wait a minute, his opinion about the partitioning thing, or his opinion that the rest of the stuff on that list is good informationor his opinions which you have cited?
I fully agree with the partitioning thing being crap. Guys who seem to be genetically geared toward having ~10% bf or below, maybe ... but a former fat boy like myself ... even though I am near 10% now, my p-ratio sucks. Genetically, my body likes to be fat!
</div>
Wait a minute, his opinion about the partitioning thing, or his opinion that the rest of the stuff on that list is good informationor his opinions which you have cited?
I fully agree with the partitioning thing being crap. Guys who seem to be genetically geared toward having ~10% bf or below, maybe ... but a former fat boy like myself ... even though I am near 10% now, my p-ratio sucks. Genetically, my body likes to be fat!
Martin Levac
New Member
The "article" isn't. Instead it's an opinion piece. Had he written sensible arguments with supporting evidence, I'd have at least considered it somewhat. But as it stands now full of inconsistencies and fallacies, I can't agree with any of it. The author tried to sell me slow bulk. He failed.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
<div>
(Totentanz @ Aug. 29 2007,01:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Goes the other way around too, buddy. There is nothing special about clean food. As long as you get enough protein in, from a muscle building stand-point, it won't matter that much whether the rest of your calories are "clean" or not.
Going by his calorie estimates for bulking, you'd have to make it your job to eat if all those calories were clean - you'd be cooking and eating all day long. That's insane. A more reasonable, middle-of-the-road diet is better in my opinion, easier to follow, easier to hit your calorie goals - it keeps you from going crazy.</div>
Great advice.
I wish it wouldn't have taken me 12 years to have know this!
(Totentanz @ Aug. 29 2007,01:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Goes the other way around too, buddy. There is nothing special about clean food. As long as you get enough protein in, from a muscle building stand-point, it won't matter that much whether the rest of your calories are "clean" or not.
Going by his calorie estimates for bulking, you'd have to make it your job to eat if all those calories were clean - you'd be cooking and eating all day long. That's insane. A more reasonable, middle-of-the-road diet is better in my opinion, easier to follow, easier to hit your calorie goals - it keeps you from going crazy.</div>
Great advice.
I wish it wouldn't have taken me 12 years to have know this!
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(Avi1985 @ Aug. 29 2007,18:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So dont do slow bulk. Bulk fast, get fat, and spend long cycles on cutting the fat.</div>
Are you implying that slow bulk is faster than bulk/cut?
(Avi1985 @ Aug. 29 2007,18:54)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So dont do slow bulk. Bulk fast, get fat, and spend long cycles on cutting the fat.</div>
Are you implying that slow bulk is faster than bulk/cut?
RUSS
Member
"You see, when you're a natural trainee your body has a limited capacity to build muscle. The amount of muscle you can build is dependent on your body's capacity to synthesize new muscle tissue from the ingested protein."
"You can eat any amount of food you want; you simply can't change your protein synthesis limit naturally. Eating more food than your body can use to build muscle will simply lead to more body fat being gained."
Pretty much says it all very concisely , while I agree that you CAN put on muscle simply by overeating you also put on a disproportionate amount of fat which will (after a certain point-18% or so IMHO) hide everything you've built. Take Gene Rychlak , powerfull beyond a doubt but I wouldn't want to look like him- I personally am not going for the "sumo look" . I think the writer made his parameters quite clear when he said in effect that everyman should/could be around 10% BF , wether you agree with this or not he did define his "mission"
Martin ,
Not sure I understand your statement that this isn't an article but an opinion piece?
"You can eat any amount of food you want; you simply can't change your protein synthesis limit naturally. Eating more food than your body can use to build muscle will simply lead to more body fat being gained."
Pretty much says it all very concisely , while I agree that you CAN put on muscle simply by overeating you also put on a disproportionate amount of fat which will (after a certain point-18% or so IMHO) hide everything you've built. Take Gene Rychlak , powerfull beyond a doubt but I wouldn't want to look like him- I personally am not going for the "sumo look" . I think the writer made his parameters quite clear when he said in effect that everyman should/could be around 10% BF , wether you agree with this or not he did define his "mission"
Martin ,
Not sure I understand your statement that this isn't an article but an opinion piece?
Martin Levac
New Member
<div>
(RUSS @ Aug. 29 2007,19:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">"You see, when you're a natural trainee your body has a limited capacity to build muscle. The amount of muscle you can build is dependent on your body's capacity to synthesize new muscle tissue from the ingested protein."
"You can eat any amount of food you want; you simply can't change your protein synthesis limit naturally. Eating more food than your body can use to build muscle will simply lead to more body fat being gained."
Pretty much says it all very concisely , while I agree that you CAN put on muscle simply by overeating you also put on a disproportionate amount of fat which will (after a certain point-18% or so IMHO) hide everything you've built. Take Gene Rychlak , powerfull beyond a doubt but I wouldn't want to look like him- I personally am not going for the "sumo look" . I think the writer made his parameters quite clear when he said in effect that everyman should/could be around 10% BF , wether you agree with this or not he did define his "mission"
Martin ,
Not sure I understand your statement that this isn't an article but an opinion piece?
</div>
Again, his opinion is that we can't change the rate of protein synthesis. In fact we can. By overeating. By training. Check this sentence:
"Eating more food than your body can use to build muscle will simply lead to more body fat being gained."
The first part "eating more food" is quite simple really, it's overeating but that's not what he means. The middle part "than your body can use to build muscle" is a fallacy considering that overeating will drive protein synthesis. The third and last part "will simply lead to more body fat being gained" is also a fallacy since overeating will drive protein synthesis and fat storage simultaneously. That sentence implies that overeating will drive only fat storage.
The article can't stand my scrutiny. Not that I'm the authority on the subject of the article, I'm not. But for it to convince me of what it says or to be successful in its mission, everything in it must be unquestionable. When just one argument is questionable, everything else becomes doubtful by extension. And that, regardless of whether or not any of it is correct or true. Because I may not be an expert in the subject but I am certainly able to read and comprehend what I read.
(RUSS @ Aug. 29 2007,19:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">"You see, when you're a natural trainee your body has a limited capacity to build muscle. The amount of muscle you can build is dependent on your body's capacity to synthesize new muscle tissue from the ingested protein."
"You can eat any amount of food you want; you simply can't change your protein synthesis limit naturally. Eating more food than your body can use to build muscle will simply lead to more body fat being gained."
Pretty much says it all very concisely , while I agree that you CAN put on muscle simply by overeating you also put on a disproportionate amount of fat which will (after a certain point-18% or so IMHO) hide everything you've built. Take Gene Rychlak , powerfull beyond a doubt but I wouldn't want to look like him- I personally am not going for the "sumo look" . I think the writer made his parameters quite clear when he said in effect that everyman should/could be around 10% BF , wether you agree with this or not he did define his "mission"
Martin ,
Not sure I understand your statement that this isn't an article but an opinion piece?
Again, his opinion is that we can't change the rate of protein synthesis. In fact we can. By overeating. By training. Check this sentence:
"Eating more food than your body can use to build muscle will simply lead to more body fat being gained."
The first part "eating more food" is quite simple really, it's overeating but that's not what he means. The middle part "than your body can use to build muscle" is a fallacy considering that overeating will drive protein synthesis. The third and last part "will simply lead to more body fat being gained" is also a fallacy since overeating will drive protein synthesis and fat storage simultaneously. That sentence implies that overeating will drive only fat storage.
The article can't stand my scrutiny. Not that I'm the authority on the subject of the article, I'm not. But for it to convince me of what it says or to be successful in its mission, everything in it must be unquestionable. When just one argument is questionable, everything else becomes doubtful by extension. And that, regardless of whether or not any of it is correct or true. Because I may not be an expert in the subject but I am certainly able to read and comprehend what I read.
But to the point, I think he is saying what we all know already - don't go crazy on your bulks. I don't think 500 over maintenance qualifies as a slow bulk, but it sounds like that is what he is talking about. I'd say that it would be safe to go higher than 10% bodyfat, but either way, don't let the bodyfat get way out of control either. All stuff we all pretty much do anyway.
RUSS
Member
<div>
(Totentanz @ Aug. 29 2007,19:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But to the point, I think he is saying what we all know already - don't go crazy on your bulks. I don't think 500 over maintenance qualifies as a slow bulk, but it sounds like that is what he is talking about. I'd say that it would be safe to go higher than 10% bodyfat, but either way, don't let the bodyfat get way out of control either. All stuff we all pretty much do anyway.</div>
I agree 100%.
(Totentanz @ Aug. 29 2007,19:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But to the point, I think he is saying what we all know already - don't go crazy on your bulks. I don't think 500 over maintenance qualifies as a slow bulk, but it sounds like that is what he is talking about. I'd say that it would be safe to go higher than 10% bodyfat, but either way, don't let the bodyfat get way out of control either. All stuff we all pretty much do anyway.</div>
I agree 100%.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
15% has always been a good rule IMO.
I went from 188 at 8% to 215 at 15% and I was big as a house. Massive looking.
I went from 215 to 222 at 19% and I looked like a Fat ass!
Moral of the story cut at 15 %
I went from 188 at 8% to 215 at 15% and I was big as a house. Massive looking.
I went from 215 to 222 at 19% and I looked like a Fat ass!
Moral of the story cut at 15 %