<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.