Great Article on Bulking
- Thread starter Joe.Muscle
- Start date
funny, i was just about to make a post about my accomplishments w/ hst and about how great my current bulk is going.
i reached 210lbs (after my morning pee) and i don't feel that there has been little to no fat fain, even though I have had a 5lb increase in two weeks. i attribute the additional weight to:
-increased glycogen
-started creatine again
-additional food working through intestines
-muscle (im prety sure and am hopeful)
-minimal fat
i use the mirror as my guage, making sure that i can see 4 abs through my fat coating. once i can only see two, i will cut back cals to maintenance for a bit.
i disagree with the article for multiple reasons. i think an hster can put on more than 1lb of muscle a month. more importantly, i think it is more important to ensure you are getting enough cals than too little. i would rather put on maximum muscle w/ little fat rather than compromise msucle to keep fat away.
i feel not eating enough was my biggest mistake in training for the past 5 years. i have made more gains this year than i did in the previous 4 years combined, due to hst and lots of cals!
i reached 210lbs (after my morning pee) and i don't feel that there has been little to no fat fain, even though I have had a 5lb increase in two weeks. i attribute the additional weight to:
-increased glycogen
-started creatine again
-additional food working through intestines
-muscle (im prety sure and am hopeful)
-minimal fat
i use the mirror as my guage, making sure that i can see 4 abs through my fat coating. once i can only see two, i will cut back cals to maintenance for a bit.
i disagree with the article for multiple reasons. i think an hster can put on more than 1lb of muscle a month. more importantly, i think it is more important to ensure you are getting enough cals than too little. i would rather put on maximum muscle w/ little fat rather than compromise msucle to keep fat away.
i feel not eating enough was my biggest mistake in training for the past 5 years. i have made more gains this year than i did in the previous 4 years combined, due to hst and lots of cals!
The whole "one pound a month" thing might apply to people who are highly trained and very close to their genetic limit... but seriously, if you sit around worrying so much about trying to keep fat gain at bay, you are going to compromise your gains a whole lot more than you would if you just got fat for a while. Cutting back the fat is easy enough that as long as you don't go totally crazy, you shouldn't worry about it too much.
I think for people who aren't at their "genetic limit" that you should be able to gain roughly a pound of muscle a week without too much problem as long as you don't train like an idiot or eat like a sparrow.
I think for people who aren't at their "genetic limit" that you should be able to gain roughly a pound of muscle a week without too much problem as long as you don't train like an idiot or eat like a sparrow.
scientific muscle
New Member
A pound a month...I agree with Totentanz, only if you are already big.
My first 2 months of max-stim training, I gained 8 lb.s and my waist measurement stayed exactly the same while my chest went up 1.5" and arms went up 5/8".
More like a pound of muscle/week! The funny thing was, I didn't even eat that much, (hence the no change in waist), I just was in an untrained state, after a LONG layoff from lifting. I have gained more muscle since then and now I DO have to eat alot to keep gaining. My metabolism has accelerated since gaining about 14 lb.s in 4 months. My waist has gone up about 1/4" only, and while my bodyfat has increased slightly, it is mostly all lean mass. I have to eat like a horse now, I eat about 4 to 5 meals/day and not clean food either, stuff like burgers, pizza, chocolate milk, ice cream, whatever helps get the calories in. I eat a ton of protein, carbs, fats, whatever....Only one word of caution, I need to watch fiber intake or it is easy to get constipated on a high-calorie diet! Raw vegetables and whole grains seem to get the job done here.
My first 2 months of max-stim training, I gained 8 lb.s and my waist measurement stayed exactly the same while my chest went up 1.5" and arms went up 5/8".
More like a pound of muscle/week! The funny thing was, I didn't even eat that much, (hence the no change in waist), I just was in an untrained state, after a LONG layoff from lifting. I have gained more muscle since then and now I DO have to eat alot to keep gaining. My metabolism has accelerated since gaining about 14 lb.s in 4 months. My waist has gone up about 1/4" only, and while my bodyfat has increased slightly, it is mostly all lean mass. I have to eat like a horse now, I eat about 4 to 5 meals/day and not clean food either, stuff like burgers, pizza, chocolate milk, ice cream, whatever helps get the calories in. I eat a ton of protein, carbs, fats, whatever....Only one word of caution, I need to watch fiber intake or it is easy to get constipated on a high-calorie diet! Raw vegetables and whole grains seem to get the job done here.
scientific muscle
New Member
It is a good article though. Alot of guys bulk way too much...I use the waist measurement as a guideline. Bulking to a cetain extent is good, but I think he is more knocking the gain a crap-load of weight for awhile, then cut the bodyfat. There is nothing wrong with putting on a little bodyfat while adding lean mass though, as long as you don't get so fat that you will have to lose alot of muscle to lean back down.
Peak_Power
New Member
I basically agree with everything he said, especially about the body's limited capacity to build muscle without "help", but I think its better to gain muscle from whatever BF% you are, then cut down to 10% once you're big, trying not to gain extra fat along the way, rather than trying to get down to 10% first then trying to gain muscle. But to each his own I suppose. Its advice everyone should be aware of.
Yeah, interesting Joe. He actually talks about gaining 2-3 lbs a month. That's not far off from consuming around 500 cals a day over maintenance which should give a gain of around 4lbs a month. I think that's fine for new trainers using HST.
I totally agree with not bulking up on junk and consuming 10,000 cals a day to try to gain weight just for the sake of it, but surely hardly anyone does this?
He does try to make the term 'bulking' seem like a bad thing. For me bulking is when you are purposefully gaining weight, at whatever rate. So you can either do it sensibly and gradually to minimise the amount of fat gain, or be a dumbass and throw caution to the wind and eat everything that isn't nailed down.
The advice I've often seen offered here, if you want to look good while gaining, is to get bf down to around 10% and then bulk until you can shift some pretty hefty iron (by consuming the aforementioned 500 cals a day over mantenance). If you start gaining too much fat along the way then back off the calories a bit, but if gains slow down or stop you either have to up the calories again or trim off a bit of excess fat first and then bulk again. Same kind of thing. Just how much fat you are prepared to carry depends on how you want to look for most of the time and what your lifting goals are.
So it was interesting but no more helpful than many other similar articles on the subject. I read a very similar one from a 1981 Muscle & Fitness just the other night! Same old, same old.
I totally agree with not bulking up on junk and consuming 10,000 cals a day to try to gain weight just for the sake of it, but surely hardly anyone does this?
He does try to make the term 'bulking' seem like a bad thing. For me bulking is when you are purposefully gaining weight, at whatever rate. So you can either do it sensibly and gradually to minimise the amount of fat gain, or be a dumbass and throw caution to the wind and eat everything that isn't nailed down.
The advice I've often seen offered here, if you want to look good while gaining, is to get bf down to around 10% and then bulk until you can shift some pretty hefty iron (by consuming the aforementioned 500 cals a day over mantenance). If you start gaining too much fat along the way then back off the calories a bit, but if gains slow down or stop you either have to up the calories again or trim off a bit of excess fat first and then bulk again. Same kind of thing. Just how much fat you are prepared to carry depends on how you want to look for most of the time and what your lifting goals are.
So it was interesting but no more helpful than many other similar articles on the subject. I read a very similar one from a 1981 Muscle & Fitness just the other night! Same old, same old.
I think she may have needed to include the age of the jobsite as a factor!
This argument leads to the camps of clean vs. dirty bulking in my opinion. She covered that.
And slow bulking vs. gorging. She covered that.
And 'roiders vs. naturals. She covered that.
I think the article has great merit, although I raise an eyebrow to everything that is "onesizefitzall" and thereby, flawed. I liked the explanation of how fat appears as muscle when layered over muscle...and many thing they've gained primarily muscle when it's primarily fat. On another note, I disagree with the 10% rule of muscle showing. I myself tend to show muscle in upper body at 15+% fat...all mine goes to my abdomen. Right now, I'm fatter than that, and finally starting to look kinda smooth.
Returning to my old gym last week, I saw folks slightly bigger than a couple of years ago, but nothing impressive. And these guys are dedicated. I saw a lot of GUTS too. But no super muscle gains. One ex-roider was much smaller. Same ol' story.
This argument leads to the camps of clean vs. dirty bulking in my opinion. She covered that.
And slow bulking vs. gorging. She covered that.
And 'roiders vs. naturals. She covered that.
I think the article has great merit, although I raise an eyebrow to everything that is "onesizefitzall" and thereby, flawed. I liked the explanation of how fat appears as muscle when layered over muscle...and many thing they've gained primarily muscle when it's primarily fat. On another note, I disagree with the 10% rule of muscle showing. I myself tend to show muscle in upper body at 15+% fat...all mine goes to my abdomen. Right now, I'm fatter than that, and finally starting to look kinda smooth.
Returning to my old gym last week, I saw folks slightly bigger than a couple of years ago, but nothing impressive. And these guys are dedicated. I saw a lot of GUTS too. But no super muscle gains. One ex-roider was much smaller. Same ol' story.
From my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience, the guys who have constantly cut down because they wanted to stay lean are not sporting less lean mass than the guys who kept bulking until they had to cut down just because they could no longer eat enough to gain weight. As long as you don't go overboard, you can bulk for very long periods of time before you have to cut back down.
Obviously when you are cutting down, you aren't making progress, so you should aim to not have to cut very often. So yeah, the article has a good point - don't get out of control with your eating, that way you can spend more time making progress.
However, is bulking up to a very large size really that bad? I guess it depends on how you want to look. For instance, our own Steve Jones. He's stronger than hell, though from what he says, it sounds like he got way up their in the weight for a while. But it sounds to me like it was worth it. I mean, look at his avatar and the weights he is moving, right?
Dave Gulledge? Another example of a guy who bulked for a long time. Wasn't he like 300 lbs before he cut down?
Obviously when you are cutting down, you aren't making progress, so you should aim to not have to cut very often. So yeah, the article has a good point - don't get out of control with your eating, that way you can spend more time making progress.
However, is bulking up to a very large size really that bad? I guess it depends on how you want to look. For instance, our own Steve Jones. He's stronger than hell, though from what he says, it sounds like he got way up their in the weight for a while. But it sounds to me like it was worth it. I mean, look at his avatar and the weights he is moving, right?
Dave Gulledge? Another example of a guy who bulked for a long time. Wasn't he like 300 lbs before he cut down?
Lifting N Tx
New Member
<div>
(Totentanz @ Sep. 26 2006,22:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Dave Gulledge? Another example of a guy who bulked for a long time. Wasn't he like 300 lbs before he cut down?</div>
Just looked back over the thread on TotalElite about Gulledge.
From 320 -> 265. After a few weeks of increasing carbs again he said that his strength was almost back and he was still almost as lean as in the really cut picture at 265. A couple of weeks after that (Aug 2005) the moderator noted in the thread that Dave had benched 725.
Gulledge also said in that thread that from the time that he was 220 lbs he basically paid no attention to his physique, but only to eating more, keeping the scale weight going up, and the weights in his lifts heavier. He said that he had recently started doing curls for the first time with regularity.
I guess someone forgot to tell him that to really get big and strong takes lots and lots of concentration curls in front of a mirror.
There's a pic of him in the Help me out here thread.
(Totentanz @ Sep. 26 2006,22:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Dave Gulledge? Another example of a guy who bulked for a long time. Wasn't he like 300 lbs before he cut down?</div>
Just looked back over the thread on TotalElite about Gulledge.
From 320 -> 265. After a few weeks of increasing carbs again he said that his strength was almost back and he was still almost as lean as in the really cut picture at 265. A couple of weeks after that (Aug 2005) the moderator noted in the thread that Dave had benched 725.
Gulledge also said in that thread that from the time that he was 220 lbs he basically paid no attention to his physique, but only to eating more, keeping the scale weight going up, and the weights in his lifts heavier. He said that he had recently started doing curls for the first time with regularity.
I guess someone forgot to tell him that to really get big and strong takes lots and lots of concentration curls in front of a mirror.
There's a pic of him in the Help me out here thread.
Something i question about bulking up for longer periods of time is that from what ive read over around 15% bodyfat partitioning starts going downhill. They say something very similar to this in the faq:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1) The leaner you are, the higher your "Partitioning Ratio" (P:Ratio). This means more energy from the diet will be directed towards lean body mass. The opposite is true if you are fat.
2) The P:Ratio also works in the same way while dieting. The leaner you are, the more lean mass you will lose while dieting. The opposite is true if you are fat.</div>
So it would seem there are two main optimal bulking strategies.
To stay at lower percentages of bodyfat to get optimal muscle to fat gains...but then risk losing more muscle mass when dieting down each time.
Or staying at higher percentages of bodyfat of around 14-19% all the time so during dieting theres less loss of muscle mass...but then risk not gaining as much muscle during the bulking period.
Both ways appear to be pretty even in that you have to compromise one way or another.
But then you have the fact that the people bulking at higher levels of bodyfat most of the time are at some time probably going to want to diet down to the lower 8-12% bodyfat levels aswell and so eventually going to have the same risk of muscle loss at some point also.
Also something ive been wondering about which might affect this was muscle memory. The fact that people who take a lay off for longer periods of time and lose muscle mass in doing that can then start training again and regain the lost muscle mass much more quickly than they would have if they had never attained that level of muscle mass atall.
Wouldnt this apply to muscle lost during dieting? It should be easier to regain any muscle lost during dieting down during the next bulk than it would have been if you were trying to gain new muscle mass.
So if that is true...it would seem that the first strategy in which you bulk at lower bf% levels so you gain more muscle during bulking would be optimal. In that even if you lose more of that muscle during dieting back down than you would have if you were at a higher bodyfat%...it should be easier to regain it during bulking anyway.
Make sense?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">1) The leaner you are, the higher your "Partitioning Ratio" (P:Ratio). This means more energy from the diet will be directed towards lean body mass. The opposite is true if you are fat.
2) The P:Ratio also works in the same way while dieting. The leaner you are, the more lean mass you will lose while dieting. The opposite is true if you are fat.</div>
So it would seem there are two main optimal bulking strategies.
To stay at lower percentages of bodyfat to get optimal muscle to fat gains...but then risk losing more muscle mass when dieting down each time.
Or staying at higher percentages of bodyfat of around 14-19% all the time so during dieting theres less loss of muscle mass...but then risk not gaining as much muscle during the bulking period.
Both ways appear to be pretty even in that you have to compromise one way or another.
But then you have the fact that the people bulking at higher levels of bodyfat most of the time are at some time probably going to want to diet down to the lower 8-12% bodyfat levels aswell and so eventually going to have the same risk of muscle loss at some point also.
Also something ive been wondering about which might affect this was muscle memory. The fact that people who take a lay off for longer periods of time and lose muscle mass in doing that can then start training again and regain the lost muscle mass much more quickly than they would have if they had never attained that level of muscle mass atall.
Wouldnt this apply to muscle lost during dieting? It should be easier to regain any muscle lost during dieting down during the next bulk than it would have been if you were trying to gain new muscle mass.
So if that is true...it would seem that the first strategy in which you bulk at lower bf% levels so you gain more muscle during bulking would be optimal. In that even if you lose more of that muscle during dieting back down than you would have if you were at a higher bodyfat%...it should be easier to regain it during bulking anyway.
Make sense?
<div>
(Totentanz @ Sep. 26 2006,23:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">However, is bulking up to a very large size really that bad? I guess it depends on how you want to look. For instance, our own Steve Jones. He's stronger than hell, though from what he says, it sounds like he got way up their in the weight for a while. But it sounds to me like it was worth it. I mean, look at his avatar and the weights he is moving, right?
Dave Gulledge? Another example of a guy who bulked for a long time. Wasn't he like 300 lbs before he cut down?</div>
Steve and Dave are big guys to begin with. 300 lbs. would look pretty stoopid on me.
What Johnny said makes sense, but here again, I think everyone should try both methods one time and see for themselves how they respond and look, how they feel about it, and how the girlfriend feels about it...
(Totentanz @ Sep. 26 2006,23:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">However, is bulking up to a very large size really that bad? I guess it depends on how you want to look. For instance, our own Steve Jones. He's stronger than hell, though from what he says, it sounds like he got way up their in the weight for a while. But it sounds to me like it was worth it. I mean, look at his avatar and the weights he is moving, right?
Dave Gulledge? Another example of a guy who bulked for a long time. Wasn't he like 300 lbs before he cut down?</div>
Steve and Dave are big guys to begin with. 300 lbs. would look pretty stoopid on me.
What Johnny said makes sense, but here again, I think everyone should try both methods one time and see for themselves how they respond and look, how they feel about it, and how the girlfriend feels about it...
stevejones
Member
<div>
(quadancer @ Sep. 27 2006,09:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Steve and Dave are big guys to begin with. 300 lbs. would look pretty stoopid on me.
What Johnny said makes sense, but here again, I think everyone should try both methods one time and see for themselves how they respond and look, how they feel about it, and how the girlfriend feels about it...
</div>
We all have to follow our own "genetic" path. If you're Paul Dillet or some super genetic freak, maybe you can bulk without gaining too much fat. I'm not a genetic freak. When I gain muscle, I also gain fat. When I lose fat, I'm losing muscle (but try my best to lose as little as possible). I think that most guys are just spitting into the wind when they try to lose fat or even maintain a waistline and gain muscle simultaneously. It's a pipe dream that only the select few can accomplish. Maybe someone reading this is one of those few, but I am one of the ordinary. I also think that even the "select few" among us will have to add fat to their bodies if they want to add an "extreme" amount of muscle mass (i.e professional bodybuider type extreme).
(quadancer @ Sep. 27 2006,09:48)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Steve and Dave are big guys to begin with. 300 lbs. would look pretty stoopid on me.
What Johnny said makes sense, but here again, I think everyone should try both methods one time and see for themselves how they respond and look, how they feel about it, and how the girlfriend feels about it...
We all have to follow our own "genetic" path. If you're Paul Dillet or some super genetic freak, maybe you can bulk without gaining too much fat. I'm not a genetic freak. When I gain muscle, I also gain fat. When I lose fat, I'm losing muscle (but try my best to lose as little as possible). I think that most guys are just spitting into the wind when they try to lose fat or even maintain a waistline and gain muscle simultaneously. It's a pipe dream that only the select few can accomplish. Maybe someone reading this is one of those few, but I am one of the ordinary. I also think that even the "select few" among us will have to add fat to their bodies if they want to add an "extreme" amount of muscle mass (i.e professional bodybuider type extreme).
Peak_Power
New Member
Yeah I agree with you there Steve, the only thing that can fix your problem is that stuff that comes in a needle...
Well yeah. You've all seen the pro's during the off-season, right? Fat, fat fat. Then they cut back down for the show. Why? Because it's easiest to gain as much mass as possible when you allow yourself to get fat like that. If you minimize fat gain, guess what? You could be minimizing muscle gain too.
I really don't buy this argument that if you take two guys, one of them "slow bulks" with a very small calorie surplus, while the other one bulks up quite a bit then cuts down when needed, that after a year or two years or even three years, the first guy will have the same amount of muscle as the second guy. Bull. The first guy will have significantly less lean mass, assuming the second guy doesn't diet down like a moron. Also, the second guy will probably be a whole lot stronger, since as we all know, you can build strength way, way easier on when you have a significant calorie surplus.
Okay, so some of you think that steve might be too extreme of an example, and dave gulledge probably has crazy genes, so.... I'll use myself as an example, since I'm pretty average sized, not huge or anything.
I know a guy around my height and age who has been training for quite a long time, but he is sooo scared of fat gain. He started around 170 lbs, and doesn't have abs showing. He is 'slow bulking' and is around like 190 or something now, I believe. Still no real abs showing.
I was 185 lbs in the beginning of 2005 when I started training seriously and I was "skinny fat", now I'm a ways over 200 and that's with abs showing. Hmm, slow bulking doesn't seem to be working for him, while long bulks and then cutting down is working great for me. Granted, maybe he partitions real bad. I'm naturally real lean, so maybe I partition real good. Okay, so assuming he has crap genes and mine are great, nope, that still doesn't add up. He has years of a head start on me, but I'm way ahead of him already? If slow bulking is so great, he should be carrying at least the same amount of lean mass as me, and I should be slightly fatter going by the theories.
Am I saying you have to walk around looking like an obese slob all year? No. At my biggest, I was around 225 lbs and people didn't even think I looked fat. Now I'm pretty new to the game still, so I may not be the best example, but I was able to gain a lot of lean mass by bulking up for a long time, got somewhat fat, and hey, I didn't die from it or any of the other horrible things that are supposed to happen.
But you know, maybe my point of view is skewed, since bulking is harder than cutting for me. I think fat is easy to cut away, as long as you have the determination, willpower and patience.
I really don't buy this argument that if you take two guys, one of them "slow bulks" with a very small calorie surplus, while the other one bulks up quite a bit then cuts down when needed, that after a year or two years or even three years, the first guy will have the same amount of muscle as the second guy. Bull. The first guy will have significantly less lean mass, assuming the second guy doesn't diet down like a moron. Also, the second guy will probably be a whole lot stronger, since as we all know, you can build strength way, way easier on when you have a significant calorie surplus.
Okay, so some of you think that steve might be too extreme of an example, and dave gulledge probably has crazy genes, so.... I'll use myself as an example, since I'm pretty average sized, not huge or anything.
I know a guy around my height and age who has been training for quite a long time, but he is sooo scared of fat gain. He started around 170 lbs, and doesn't have abs showing. He is 'slow bulking' and is around like 190 or something now, I believe. Still no real abs showing.
I was 185 lbs in the beginning of 2005 when I started training seriously and I was "skinny fat", now I'm a ways over 200 and that's with abs showing. Hmm, slow bulking doesn't seem to be working for him, while long bulks and then cutting down is working great for me. Granted, maybe he partitions real bad. I'm naturally real lean, so maybe I partition real good. Okay, so assuming he has crap genes and mine are great, nope, that still doesn't add up. He has years of a head start on me, but I'm way ahead of him already? If slow bulking is so great, he should be carrying at least the same amount of lean mass as me, and I should be slightly fatter going by the theories.
Am I saying you have to walk around looking like an obese slob all year? No. At my biggest, I was around 225 lbs and people didn't even think I looked fat. Now I'm pretty new to the game still, so I may not be the best example, but I was able to gain a lot of lean mass by bulking up for a long time, got somewhat fat, and hey, I didn't die from it or any of the other horrible things that are supposed to happen.
But you know, maybe my point of view is skewed, since bulking is harder than cutting for me. I think fat is easy to cut away, as long as you have the determination, willpower and patience.
Fausto
HST Expert
Me thinks...to cut a long story short one should only bulk to +/- 15%, then start cutting down.
That way you never build too much fat, and you can monitor by checking your abs, when they start fading, then it is time to cut.
I think yo-yoing too much can damage your partintioning ratio's.
It would be nice to see O & G's opinion here as he is in his 60's and lean and one would like to keep things going till then.
That way you never build too much fat, and you can monitor by checking your abs, when they start fading, then it is time to cut.
I think yo-yoing too much can damage your partintioning ratio's.
It would be nice to see O & G's opinion here as he is in his 60's and lean and one would like to keep things going till then.
Joe.Muscle
Active Member
Well IMO there are simply too many variables to say for sure.
Take Tot...it seems he cuts real easy...so for him the way he is bulking makes great sense.
But take a "FFB" or Former Fat Boy...one who butts his ass and can barely loose weight.
I know guys who fall into both catagories. I know guys who just can't seem to get lean and bust there ass...so this is prob genetics.
However I know guys who eat like crap and stay ripped???
Secondly for the Most part I agree with Fausto on the visible abs approach.
I think this will work for 99% of most people...however in my expierence I have friends who can keep abs up to 15% bodyfat.
however myself on the other hand I have to cut to negative 3% and be a corpse to see my abs.
I am like Tot in a way...meaning I can carry lots of extra weight and not look fat.
However I can't carry the extra weight and have anywhere neer of abs showing?
Take Tot...it seems he cuts real easy...so for him the way he is bulking makes great sense.
But take a "FFB" or Former Fat Boy...one who butts his ass and can barely loose weight.
I know guys who fall into both catagories. I know guys who just can't seem to get lean and bust there ass...so this is prob genetics.
However I know guys who eat like crap and stay ripped???
Secondly for the Most part I agree with Fausto on the visible abs approach.
I think this will work for 99% of most people...however in my expierence I have friends who can keep abs up to 15% bodyfat.
however myself on the other hand I have to cut to negative 3% and be a corpse to see my abs.
I am like Tot in a way...meaning I can carry lots of extra weight and not look fat.
However I can't carry the extra weight and have anywhere neer of abs showing?
abarlament
New Member
Quadancer, go look at the "before" pic of Dave Gulledge and tell me he was "naturally huge" or whatever you said. He weighed like 180 lbs.
And whoever said to get lean before bulking because you'll have better partitioning... I don't believe that's how it works. Evidently the study was done on NATURALLY lean people who bulked up, obviously naturally lean people get better partitioning than someone who is naturally fat, and dieted to a very lean state.
For the fat guys, dieting to a very lean state causes them to put on fat, not muscle, preferentially.
And whoever said to get lean before bulking because you'll have better partitioning... I don't believe that's how it works. Evidently the study was done on NATURALLY lean people who bulked up, obviously naturally lean people get better partitioning than someone who is naturally fat, and dieted to a very lean state.
For the fat guys, dieting to a very lean state causes them to put on fat, not muscle, preferentially.