I'm starting to become skeptical
- Thread starter Joe.Muscle
- Start date
QuantumPositron
New Member
There are many ideas for how to keep growing. In light of what's already been said, here's mine.
First thing first, find out where you are relative to the
theoretical maximum. Visit the HST body size calculator and input your measurements into it a well as the calculators found here:
http://www.weightrainer.net/bodycalc.html
I say theoretical because some people begin with, or quickly achieve, the maximum or near maximum as determined by the calculator. This highlights the fact that the math behind the calculator is founded upon empirical measurements taken from athletes and bodybuilders and that humans come in infinite variety. The calculator can be wrong, but likely isn't. I am not blowing sunshine....
If you haven't maxed out your stats then there's likely room to grow. When it comes to what to do, the first and most obvious course of action is to go through a checklist of commonly supported and widely agreed upon bulking methods and see to it that you are doing each correctly. If without flinching you say "Well yes of course I am doing it all correctly" then you didn't take inventory. Science is based on the premise that human beings can fool themselves. Check and double check.
Here is a cute little flowchart, perhaps it will help:
Look at me I'm a flowchart.
Obviously if something in the checklist and/or flowchart is amiss you should redress it. I think you should do the redressing and wait patiently to check for results before continuing with the higher volume split routine. My reasoning is that if you alter too many variables at once and something goes well you will not know which it was. Ditto if things go bad.
If you made it through the checklist with flying colors then I would advise you to remember that the question of added volume is controversial. Some notable individuals add volume and claim their success on the increase. Other notable individuals decrease their volume and claim their success on the decrease. Of this group, one in particular founded a new world religion called "HIT." Members of the HST forum and many other forums will argue it back and forth if you bring it up. I think given the evidence you should experiment on you and find out. If the added volume does indeed assist you in your goal you will know it was correct. If it does not assist you then perhaps go the other way and drop volume lower than before. I don't know what constitutes over training. Supposedly this research is still written only in Cyrillic. I have found only one quantitative measure of its presence and that is to take your waking heart rate before you get out of bed each morning. Use the wrist method. Consumer Reports considered it the gold standard to which it compared retail market heart rate monitors. The rule of thumb (or finger, if you're into women's studies) is that if you're waking HR changes by 7 or more beats per minute up or down consistently for several days then you may be in an over trained state. Ideally you would want to establish a baseline by taking your waking HR every morning for at least 2 weeks.
Methodical effort always yields a tangible result.
First thing first, find out where you are relative to the
theoretical maximum. Visit the HST body size calculator and input your measurements into it a well as the calculators found here:
http://www.weightrainer.net/bodycalc.html
I say theoretical because some people begin with, or quickly achieve, the maximum or near maximum as determined by the calculator. This highlights the fact that the math behind the calculator is founded upon empirical measurements taken from athletes and bodybuilders and that humans come in infinite variety. The calculator can be wrong, but likely isn't. I am not blowing sunshine....
If you haven't maxed out your stats then there's likely room to grow. When it comes to what to do, the first and most obvious course of action is to go through a checklist of commonly supported and widely agreed upon bulking methods and see to it that you are doing each correctly. If without flinching you say "Well yes of course I am doing it all correctly" then you didn't take inventory. Science is based on the premise that human beings can fool themselves. Check and double check.
Here is a cute little flowchart, perhaps it will help:
Look at me I'm a flowchart.
Obviously if something in the checklist and/or flowchart is amiss you should redress it. I think you should do the redressing and wait patiently to check for results before continuing with the higher volume split routine. My reasoning is that if you alter too many variables at once and something goes well you will not know which it was. Ditto if things go bad.
If you made it through the checklist with flying colors then I would advise you to remember that the question of added volume is controversial. Some notable individuals add volume and claim their success on the increase. Other notable individuals decrease their volume and claim their success on the decrease. Of this group, one in particular founded a new world religion called "HIT." Members of the HST forum and many other forums will argue it back and forth if you bring it up. I think given the evidence you should experiment on you and find out. If the added volume does indeed assist you in your goal you will know it was correct. If it does not assist you then perhaps go the other way and drop volume lower than before. I don't know what constitutes over training. Supposedly this research is still written only in Cyrillic. I have found only one quantitative measure of its presence and that is to take your waking heart rate before you get out of bed each morning. Use the wrist method. Consumer Reports considered it the gold standard to which it compared retail market heart rate monitors. The rule of thumb (or finger, if you're into women's studies) is that if you're waking HR changes by 7 or more beats per minute up or down consistently for several days then you may be in an over trained state. Ideally you would want to establish a baseline by taking your waking HR every morning for at least 2 weeks.
Methodical effort always yields a tangible result.
scientific muscle
New Member
I decided to quote Bryan Haycock from the FAQ section:
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Increase volume if:
You are never sore
You are never tired
YOU ARE NOT GROWING
Maintain volume if:
You are slightly sore most of the time
You are tired enough to sleep well, but not so tired you lose motivation to train.
You are noticeably “fuller”
Decrease volume if:
You are experiencing over use pain, and strain symptoms in joints and/or muscles.
You are tired and irritable all the time, yet don’t sleep well.
Strength levels are significantly decreasing.
</div>
According to the founder of "HST" you need to increase volume if you are not growing. This is because as you train over time, your muscles develop a conditioning to resist micro-trauma. Deconditioning helps a little, but as you become more advanced, you need more exercise to induce micro-trauma effectively.
Like I said before, increase the volume as much as you need for your chest and back while maintaining volume for the other muscles and I suspect you will see some growth as long as diet is in order.
I think it is important to follow Bryan's guidelines quoted above and adjust volume accordingly as we go from cycle to cycle.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Increase volume if:
You are never sore
You are never tired
YOU ARE NOT GROWING
Maintain volume if:
You are slightly sore most of the time
You are tired enough to sleep well, but not so tired you lose motivation to train.
You are noticeably “fuller”
Decrease volume if:
You are experiencing over use pain, and strain symptoms in joints and/or muscles.
You are tired and irritable all the time, yet don’t sleep well.
Strength levels are significantly decreasing.
</div>
According to the founder of "HST" you need to increase volume if you are not growing. This is because as you train over time, your muscles develop a conditioning to resist micro-trauma. Deconditioning helps a little, but as you become more advanced, you need more exercise to induce micro-trauma effectively.
Like I said before, increase the volume as much as you need for your chest and back while maintaining volume for the other muscles and I suspect you will see some growth as long as diet is in order.
I think it is important to follow Bryan's guidelines quoted above and adjust volume accordingly as we go from cycle to cycle.
Morgoth the Dark Enemy
New Member
<div>
(colby2152 @ Oct. 29 2007,15:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Oct. 27 2007,16:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thanks Colby,
And I have thought about that but I wouldn't think bulking from sub 9 % up to 14 to 15 % would cause that big of a difference???
However maybe I am wrong on this.
When I have been at my leanest ( a 4 pack of abs) I weighed about 174 to 175 pounds...but I look way better with NO (4 pack) but a flat stomach and bigger pecs and arms at 195 pounds.
Its seems the quest of abs could destroy my gains at times....but I am still not convinced that is the only problem.</div>
Bulking from 9 to 15 percent would cause a huge difference in your appearance. You want to keep the muscle on your body, correct? Slow bulking properly takes away the need for a cut, so all your gains will stay. It seems like the perfect solution for your problem.
As far as training goes, varying your training can be good for the mind and body. What the others have said about your routine could be a fix, but your diet is the problem.</div>
Unless you have access to some magic physiology/fairy dust, the bolded part is wrong. What would be the difference between bulking over let's say three years from 9% to 15%, compared to bulking in 3 months?You've still got 15% BF ratio. The P-ratio in human beings is fairly set in stone, so ratio of muscle to fat gain is fairly similar under both of these conditions. The sad truth is that no ammount of precision tweaking/putzing will make you partition 100% to muscle and 0% to fat. Guys using 1g of Test per week(Test is something of an excellent partitioner) still got some fat with their muscle.
Like in everything, moderation would probably be the optimal thing. Not eating a tub of icecream+10 pounds of ground beef+whatever per day, nor being anal like there's no tomorrow with counting your excedent to be exactly 243,5 calories so that you're slow bulking, but simply keeping tabs on your BF and pushing the limits of slackness. Be sure you get protein+EFAs, then eat leisurely, maybe trying to put the bulk of your carbs around training. Check BF weekly with calipers. Once you hit 15% stop. Cut to 6-7. Rinse, clean, repeat. Have 2 weeks of maintenance eating between bulking/cutting cycles(this ensures you hang on to your gains as much as possible/don't jump right into overeating from a caloric restricted period).
None of the goofier approaches(slow bulk, CKD bulk, UD2 bulk, IF bulk, whatever bulk) seem to have made a iota difference...because maybe, just maybe, if you don't go crazy and ensure that you have protein and EFAs in your diet, it doesn't really matter.
(colby2152 @ Oct. 29 2007,15:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Joe.Muscle @ Oct. 27 2007,16:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Thanks Colby,
And I have thought about that but I wouldn't think bulking from sub 9 % up to 14 to 15 % would cause that big of a difference???
However maybe I am wrong on this.
When I have been at my leanest ( a 4 pack of abs) I weighed about 174 to 175 pounds...but I look way better with NO (4 pack) but a flat stomach and bigger pecs and arms at 195 pounds.
Its seems the quest of abs could destroy my gains at times....but I am still not convinced that is the only problem.</div>
Bulking from 9 to 15 percent would cause a huge difference in your appearance. You want to keep the muscle on your body, correct? Slow bulking properly takes away the need for a cut, so all your gains will stay. It seems like the perfect solution for your problem.
As far as training goes, varying your training can be good for the mind and body. What the others have said about your routine could be a fix, but your diet is the problem.</div>
Unless you have access to some magic physiology/fairy dust, the bolded part is wrong. What would be the difference between bulking over let's say three years from 9% to 15%, compared to bulking in 3 months?You've still got 15% BF ratio. The P-ratio in human beings is fairly set in stone, so ratio of muscle to fat gain is fairly similar under both of these conditions. The sad truth is that no ammount of precision tweaking/putzing will make you partition 100% to muscle and 0% to fat. Guys using 1g of Test per week(Test is something of an excellent partitioner) still got some fat with their muscle.
Like in everything, moderation would probably be the optimal thing. Not eating a tub of icecream+10 pounds of ground beef+whatever per day, nor being anal like there's no tomorrow with counting your excedent to be exactly 243,5 calories so that you're slow bulking, but simply keeping tabs on your BF and pushing the limits of slackness. Be sure you get protein+EFAs, then eat leisurely, maybe trying to put the bulk of your carbs around training. Check BF weekly with calipers. Once you hit 15% stop. Cut to 6-7. Rinse, clean, repeat. Have 2 weeks of maintenance eating between bulking/cutting cycles(this ensures you hang on to your gains as much as possible/don't jump right into overeating from a caloric restricted period).
None of the goofier approaches(slow bulk, CKD bulk, UD2 bulk, IF bulk, whatever bulk) seem to have made a iota difference...because maybe, just maybe, if you don't go crazy and ensure that you have protein and EFAs in your diet, it doesn't really matter.
bluejacket
New Member
i have to agree with most (if not all) of what MDE wrote above. that could perhaps be b/c we are looking and reading from the same sources and have had similar exper. but the fact remains ones p-ratio really does matter that much.
other factors MDE mentioned can make some diff (w/o style & freq., amount/quality of pro., consistency (over months and yrs), diet strategy etc) but chances are if youve trained hard in the past and truely eaten in the "bulking style" (regardless of slow or fast) then you probably have a pretty good idea at what rate you are going to put on actual muscle, not just wgt, but actual muscle. all the other lifting and eating strategies can help to a degree (especially with keeping the muscle once gained) but are not going to completely re-work your p-ratio.
another factor i see is that your basing most/all your "progress" on things that are very, very, very subjective without trying to do much that would help limit that. if your starting a new prog. take some measurements and write them down. arms, legs midsection etc etc.......take plenty, all you can think of.......you can always disregard them later if you find them worthless but you cant go back and measure what your arms where on may 1st 2007. take some pictures. weigh yourself regularly. track your wgts (sounds like you do this already). track your intake. i think you see what im getting at. going by feel and appearance can be fine for some but if your begining to question your whole diet and w/o approach based on your perception but not on actual #s of some sort then youll always be at the mercy of your mood or your memory.
personally i could look in the upstairs mirror then look in the downstairs mirror and then go outside and take a photo on my back porch. in the space of 5minutes i can feel too skinny, too fat or feel i look pretty good. how i feel about myself at any given moment is important, im just not going to let it have the final say.
good luck
other factors MDE mentioned can make some diff (w/o style & freq., amount/quality of pro., consistency (over months and yrs), diet strategy etc) but chances are if youve trained hard in the past and truely eaten in the "bulking style" (regardless of slow or fast) then you probably have a pretty good idea at what rate you are going to put on actual muscle, not just wgt, but actual muscle. all the other lifting and eating strategies can help to a degree (especially with keeping the muscle once gained) but are not going to completely re-work your p-ratio.
another factor i see is that your basing most/all your "progress" on things that are very, very, very subjective without trying to do much that would help limit that. if your starting a new prog. take some measurements and write them down. arms, legs midsection etc etc.......take plenty, all you can think of.......you can always disregard them later if you find them worthless but you cant go back and measure what your arms where on may 1st 2007. take some pictures. weigh yourself regularly. track your wgts (sounds like you do this already). track your intake. i think you see what im getting at. going by feel and appearance can be fine for some but if your begining to question your whole diet and w/o approach based on your perception but not on actual #s of some sort then youll always be at the mercy of your mood or your memory.
personally i could look in the upstairs mirror then look in the downstairs mirror and then go outside and take a photo on my back porch. in the space of 5minutes i can feel too skinny, too fat or feel i look pretty good. how i feel about myself at any given moment is important, im just not going to let it have the final say.
good luck
BEWARE: LONG POST!
Hey Joe.M.
I would suggest that what ever lifting schedule you finally decide on, that you stick with HST principles if size is still your primary goal.
Full-body schedules have their advantages but they also have their disadvantages depending on what your situation is. Full-body schedules allow for rapid whole body growth. If you stick to a full body routine for a good amount of the time you aren’t likely to develop any lagging body parts. On the other hand you will be limited in the amount of volume you can squeeze in.
HST principles can be easily incorporated into a number of schedules.
1) Basic HST – full body 3/week
2) Basic HST w/A-B routines – full body 3/week with alternating routines for added exercise variety.
3) Basic HST Two-A-Days – full body 3/week repeated morning & evening.
4) Advanced HST Two-A-Day 3-day Split – full body split over morning/evening (e.g. upper body morning then lower body evening) M, W, & F.
5) Advanced HST Upper-Lower 6 day Split – upper body M,W,F and lower body T,Thu,Sat.
6) Advanced HST Push Pull 6 day split – push M,W,F and pull T,Thu,Sat.
With the advanced schedules you will be able to double your volume per muscle group. So during the 5’s it would not be unusual to do 5 or 6 sets for an exercise. Still, this has to be done with prudence or you will run into over-use problems or general overtraining.
There is also nothing to prevent a person from jumping around from one schedule to another mid cycle. The full body workouts during the 15s create a unique and powerful stimulus. However, and things get heavier, that’s when I like to focus on my primary lifts and get in a good number of heavy sets. So I might start out doing full body 3/week until the second week of 10s. Then I’ll move to an upper/lower split to finish out the cycle.
Another option is to do a cycle or two that are strength specific. This would entail using a 2/week schedule with 80-85% 1RM for 4-8 sets per muscle group. This would be an opportunity to engage in a number of strength training methods like partials, forced reps, power training, and/or using range of motion progression, to name a few.
You might also want to take another look at your nutrition (I know, I know, people always say that). Here is a sample day of what you should be eating if you’re serious about getting big. Let’s say we multiply your bodyweight by 16…we get 2,850 kcals. This might look something like this for the first couple weeks:
2,500 Calories
(BW = 160 lbs)
MEAL 1
6 eggs (2 yolks)
1 cup oatmeal
1 piece fruit
½ Tbs Flax
MEAL 2
6 oz tuna in water
1 cup brown rice
1 cup cooked broccoli
1 gram Fish-oil
MEAL 3
4 oz turkey
1 med potato
MEAL 4
4 oz chicken
1 Banana
Pre-Workout
1 scoop Whey
2-5 grams Leucine
20 gm malto-dextrin
Creatine (5 grams)
Post-Workout
1 scoop Whey
2-5 grams Leucine
20 gm Dextrose
½ Tbs Flax
MEAL 7
4 oz chicken
1 med potato
Spinach Salad
1 gram Fish-oil
Totals
160 g Protein
310 g Carbs
64 g Fat
Then depending on what your weight does, you could bump it up to something like this:
3,000 Calories
(BW = 190 lbs )
MEAL 1
8 eggs (2 yolks)
2 cups cream of wheat
1 piece fruit
½ Tbs Flax
MEAL 2
6 oz tuna in water
1 cup rice
1 cup cooked broccoli
1 gram Fish-oil
MEAL 3
5 oz chicken
1 med potato
1 cup corn
MEAL 4
5 oz chicken
1 med potato
Pre-Workout
1 scoop Whey
2-5 grams Leucine
20 gm maltodextrin
Creatine (5 grams)
Post-Workout
1 ½ scoop Whey
2-5 grams Leucine
20 gm Dextrose
20 gm maltodextrin
1 Tbs Flax
MEAL 7
8 oz halibut
1 large potato
Spinach Salad
2 grams fish-oil
Totals
190 g Protein
380 g Carbs
75 g Fat
Now, I’m sure you’ve heard/read this before. But sometimes its easy to slip back into old habits of under-eating; or at least, under-eating the right foods and over-eating the wrong ones.
Hey Joe.M.
I would suggest that what ever lifting schedule you finally decide on, that you stick with HST principles if size is still your primary goal.
Full-body schedules have their advantages but they also have their disadvantages depending on what your situation is. Full-body schedules allow for rapid whole body growth. If you stick to a full body routine for a good amount of the time you aren’t likely to develop any lagging body parts. On the other hand you will be limited in the amount of volume you can squeeze in.
HST principles can be easily incorporated into a number of schedules.
1) Basic HST – full body 3/week
2) Basic HST w/A-B routines – full body 3/week with alternating routines for added exercise variety.
3) Basic HST Two-A-Days – full body 3/week repeated morning & evening.
4) Advanced HST Two-A-Day 3-day Split – full body split over morning/evening (e.g. upper body morning then lower body evening) M, W, & F.
5) Advanced HST Upper-Lower 6 day Split – upper body M,W,F and lower body T,Thu,Sat.
6) Advanced HST Push Pull 6 day split – push M,W,F and pull T,Thu,Sat.
With the advanced schedules you will be able to double your volume per muscle group. So during the 5’s it would not be unusual to do 5 or 6 sets for an exercise. Still, this has to be done with prudence or you will run into over-use problems or general overtraining.
There is also nothing to prevent a person from jumping around from one schedule to another mid cycle. The full body workouts during the 15s create a unique and powerful stimulus. However, and things get heavier, that’s when I like to focus on my primary lifts and get in a good number of heavy sets. So I might start out doing full body 3/week until the second week of 10s. Then I’ll move to an upper/lower split to finish out the cycle.
Another option is to do a cycle or two that are strength specific. This would entail using a 2/week schedule with 80-85% 1RM for 4-8 sets per muscle group. This would be an opportunity to engage in a number of strength training methods like partials, forced reps, power training, and/or using range of motion progression, to name a few.
You might also want to take another look at your nutrition (I know, I know, people always say that). Here is a sample day of what you should be eating if you’re serious about getting big. Let’s say we multiply your bodyweight by 16…we get 2,850 kcals. This might look something like this for the first couple weeks:
2,500 Calories
(BW = 160 lbs)
MEAL 1
6 eggs (2 yolks)
1 cup oatmeal
1 piece fruit
½ Tbs Flax
MEAL 2
6 oz tuna in water
1 cup brown rice
1 cup cooked broccoli
1 gram Fish-oil
MEAL 3
4 oz turkey
1 med potato
MEAL 4
4 oz chicken
1 Banana
Pre-Workout
1 scoop Whey
2-5 grams Leucine
20 gm malto-dextrin
Creatine (5 grams)
Post-Workout
1 scoop Whey
2-5 grams Leucine
20 gm Dextrose
½ Tbs Flax
MEAL 7
4 oz chicken
1 med potato
Spinach Salad
1 gram Fish-oil
Totals
160 g Protein
310 g Carbs
64 g Fat
Then depending on what your weight does, you could bump it up to something like this:
3,000 Calories
(BW = 190 lbs )
MEAL 1
8 eggs (2 yolks)
2 cups cream of wheat
1 piece fruit
½ Tbs Flax
MEAL 2
6 oz tuna in water
1 cup rice
1 cup cooked broccoli
1 gram Fish-oil
MEAL 3
5 oz chicken
1 med potato
1 cup corn
MEAL 4
5 oz chicken
1 med potato
Pre-Workout
1 scoop Whey
2-5 grams Leucine
20 gm maltodextrin
Creatine (5 grams)
Post-Workout
1 ½ scoop Whey
2-5 grams Leucine
20 gm Dextrose
20 gm maltodextrin
1 Tbs Flax
MEAL 7
8 oz halibut
1 large potato
Spinach Salad
2 grams fish-oil
Totals
190 g Protein
380 g Carbs
75 g Fat
Now, I’m sure you’ve heard/read this before. But sometimes its easy to slip back into old habits of under-eating; or at least, under-eating the right foods and over-eating the wrong ones.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Unless you have access to some magic physiology/fairy dust, the bolded part is wrong. What would be the difference between bulking over let's say three years from 9% to 15%, compared to bulking in 3 months?You've still got 15% BF ratio. The P-ratio in human beings is fairly set in stone, so ratio of muscle to fat gain is fairly similar under both of these conditions. The sad truth is that no ammount of precision tweaking/putzing will make you partition 100% to muscle and 0% to fat. Guys using 1g of Test per week(Test is something of an excellent partitioner) still got some fat with their muscle.</div>
Morgoth, you misread what I typed. I was comparing a bulk where you would go from 9 to 15 percent body fat. If you do a slowbulk correctly, your bodyfat% will never go up. You want to optimize the slow bulk to put on as little fat as possible.
Morgoth, you misread what I typed. I was comparing a bulk where you would go from 9 to 15 percent body fat. If you do a slowbulk correctly, your bodyfat% will never go up. You want to optimize the slow bulk to put on as little fat as possible.
QuantumPositron
New Member
The body is complex. Who can say for sure?
QuantumPositron
New Member
Bryan (or anyone),
How many lifts *can* you fit into a productive whole body routine?
50 min max.
2 min between lifts.
1 set per lift.
1:10 avg lifting time.
50 / 3:10 = 15.78?
I don't think I've ever done more than 7.
What if you ingested sugar/protein/creatine as you lifted?
Could you keep on going?
How many lifts *can* you fit into a productive whole body routine?
50 min max.
2 min between lifts.
1 set per lift.
1:10 avg lifting time.
50 / 3:10 = 15.78?
I don't think I've ever done more than 7.
What if you ingested sugar/protein/creatine as you lifted?
Could you keep on going?
I think what Colby is saying is that fat and lean tissue would/could increase in the same proportions if on a 'slow' bulk.
I don't think that's likely as a lot of what is counted as lean mass is other stuff apart from just muscle. Depending on your P-ratio, it may be that you add about 1lb of fat for every 1lb of muscle, assuming you are training and eating correctly.
Let's say this is the case for a 200lb lifter @ 10% bodyfat (20lb of fat) who adds 10lb of lean mass. His bf %age might change like this:
200lb @ 10% bf + 10lb muscle + 10lb fat => 220lb @ 13.6% bf
So with an equal fat to muscle gain of 10lb, his total bf has gone up 3.6%.
In order to keep his body fat %age constant (which means that it varies in actual physical amount in proportion to body weight) he would have had to have added 18lb of muscle and only 2lb of fat, or 9lb of muscle for each 1lb of fat. Even with a very favourable P-ratio I don't think that's going to happen without the use of some additional chemical help and maybe not even then. Dunno.
This excerpt from Lyle's "The Ultimate Diet 2.0" is a good refresher on P-ratio:
Calorie/Nutrient Partitioning
Reading Bryan's post has made me really hungry!
I don't think that's likely as a lot of what is counted as lean mass is other stuff apart from just muscle. Depending on your P-ratio, it may be that you add about 1lb of fat for every 1lb of muscle, assuming you are training and eating correctly.
Let's say this is the case for a 200lb lifter @ 10% bodyfat (20lb of fat) who adds 10lb of lean mass. His bf %age might change like this:
200lb @ 10% bf + 10lb muscle + 10lb fat => 220lb @ 13.6% bf
So with an equal fat to muscle gain of 10lb, his total bf has gone up 3.6%.
In order to keep his body fat %age constant (which means that it varies in actual physical amount in proportion to body weight) he would have had to have added 18lb of muscle and only 2lb of fat, or 9lb of muscle for each 1lb of fat. Even with a very favourable P-ratio I don't think that's going to happen without the use of some additional chemical help and maybe not even then. Dunno.
This excerpt from Lyle's "The Ultimate Diet 2.0" is a good refresher on P-ratio:
Calorie/Nutrient Partitioning
Reading Bryan's post has made me really hungry!
Morgoth the Dark Enemy
New Member
<div>
(quadancer @ Oct. 31 2007,04:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I wonder about that myself, I mean, is it even possible to put on muscle only?
I would think that for noobs, yes, but not for someone who's been in training for years. I suppose there could be other certain conditions where one might.</div>
No. Not unless you have some out of this world genetics, and even then(see pros, who have metric fucktons of drugs and great genetics-they still get fat, and if they could simply go on a continuous slow bulk that removes their need for cutting and piles on the muscle, they sure as hell would be on it).Not with androgens, not with other drugs currently known to man, not with any dietary strategy. Probably gene therapy'll change that.
Colby, I actually understood that's what you were trying to say. And I still disagree(see above). There is no path to 100% muscle gain with 0% fat gain. You can limit fat gain, of course, but by simply not being retarded with eating(so, umm, yes, I don't really need 5kgs of french fries with mayo and whatever just because I'm bulking), and sticking to basic principles, you're going to do that anyhow.
Think about it-your body has evolved for an assload of time into a very very proficient fat storing machine. OTOH, it doesn't care all that much about ripped abz and big gunz. The integrated response to overfeeding/underfeeding is staggeringly complex-what makes you think that the crude tools available can overcome what your body's milenar adaptations?I heartily suggest you grab yourself copies of Lyle's Bromocriptine booklet and his UD2.0-they detail the issues of partitioning, diet adaptations and so on.
Bryan, it is almost magical to see you posting here again
(quadancer @ Oct. 31 2007,04:30)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I wonder about that myself, I mean, is it even possible to put on muscle only?
I would think that for noobs, yes, but not for someone who's been in training for years. I suppose there could be other certain conditions where one might.</div>
No. Not unless you have some out of this world genetics, and even then(see pros, who have metric fucktons of drugs and great genetics-they still get fat, and if they could simply go on a continuous slow bulk that removes their need for cutting and piles on the muscle, they sure as hell would be on it).Not with androgens, not with other drugs currently known to man, not with any dietary strategy. Probably gene therapy'll change that.
Colby, I actually understood that's what you were trying to say. And I still disagree(see above). There is no path to 100% muscle gain with 0% fat gain. You can limit fat gain, of course, but by simply not being retarded with eating(so, umm, yes, I don't really need 5kgs of french fries with mayo and whatever just because I'm bulking), and sticking to basic principles, you're going to do that anyhow.
Think about it-your body has evolved for an assload of time into a very very proficient fat storing machine. OTOH, it doesn't care all that much about ripped abz and big gunz. The integrated response to overfeeding/underfeeding is staggeringly complex-what makes you think that the crude tools available can overcome what your body's milenar adaptations?I heartily suggest you grab yourself copies of Lyle's Bromocriptine booklet and his UD2.0-they detail the issues of partitioning, diet adaptations and so on.
Bryan, it is almost magical to see you posting here again
I agree that there is no path to 100% muscle gain, but it's been consistently shown through people that a slower bulk puts a greater percentage of muscle on albeit a lesser amount than a regular bulk.
Most people disagree with the slow bulk philosophy. Maybe they are right, maybe I only had the good %gains because I was still a newbie (2 years ago) when I was slow bulking, but there are vets around this board like O&G that slow bulked with great success.
Nevertheless, I have bookmarked the link that Lol provided. I'll check into Lyle's partitioning and diet adaptations in the coming weeks when I have more time. I am sure it will be a good read.
Most people disagree with the slow bulk philosophy. Maybe they are right, maybe I only had the good %gains because I was still a newbie (2 years ago) when I was slow bulking, but there are vets around this board like O&G that slow bulked with great success.
Nevertheless, I have bookmarked the link that Lol provided. I'll check into Lyle's partitioning and diet adaptations in the coming weeks when I have more time. I am sure it will be a good read.
Morgoth the Dark Enemy
New Member
<div>
(colby2152 @ Oct. 31 2007,16:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I agree that there is no path to 100% muscle gain, but it's been consistently shown through people that a slower bulk puts a greater percentage of muscle on albeit a lesser amount than a regular bulk.
Most people disagree with the slow bulk philosophy. Maybe they are right, maybe I only had the good %gains because I was still a newbie (2 years ago) when I was slow bulking, but there are vets around this board like O&G that slow bulked with great success.
Nevertheless, I have bookmarked the link that Lol provided. I'll check into Lyle's partitioning and diet adaptations in the coming weeks when I have more time. I am sure it will be a good read.</div>
Well, in this context(IMHO), consistently shown through people means that once you get the dude downing food like there was no tomorrow, mostly carbs and fat because protein ain't that sexy, to actually watch what he's eating even when bulking and to actually leave something in the fridge after a meal, he'll gain more muscle. Well, of course he will, you're going from something incredibly wrong to a right approach.
OTOH, get some dudes who take care of the basics-protein, EFAs, non-retarded training, maybe some moving of carbs to peri-workout period. Have half of them eat a very tightly controlled minimal caloric excedent, in order to bulk slowly. Have the other half eat more leisurely, whilst still respecting the above principles. I'm willing to bet that there would be scarce difference in terms of LBM gains, but the second approach is far more fun than having an extra bread loaf/serving of chicken breast/whatever in order to add a modicum of calories. And I don't think that life should be a perpetual unpleasant experience(dieting stress, bulking stress etc.).
Of course that doesn't mean I think that gains beyond 2lbs/week at most are desirable/possible without significant fat gain in a natural trainee, so don't mistake my position for one that is apologetic for pigging out.
(colby2152 @ Oct. 31 2007,16:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I agree that there is no path to 100% muscle gain, but it's been consistently shown through people that a slower bulk puts a greater percentage of muscle on albeit a lesser amount than a regular bulk.
Most people disagree with the slow bulk philosophy. Maybe they are right, maybe I only had the good %gains because I was still a newbie (2 years ago) when I was slow bulking, but there are vets around this board like O&G that slow bulked with great success.
Nevertheless, I have bookmarked the link that Lol provided. I'll check into Lyle's partitioning and diet adaptations in the coming weeks when I have more time. I am sure it will be a good read.</div>
Well, in this context(IMHO), consistently shown through people means that once you get the dude downing food like there was no tomorrow, mostly carbs and fat because protein ain't that sexy, to actually watch what he's eating even when bulking and to actually leave something in the fridge after a meal, he'll gain more muscle. Well, of course he will, you're going from something incredibly wrong to a right approach.
OTOH, get some dudes who take care of the basics-protein, EFAs, non-retarded training, maybe some moving of carbs to peri-workout period. Have half of them eat a very tightly controlled minimal caloric excedent, in order to bulk slowly. Have the other half eat more leisurely, whilst still respecting the above principles. I'm willing to bet that there would be scarce difference in terms of LBM gains, but the second approach is far more fun than having an extra bread loaf/serving of chicken breast/whatever in order to add a modicum of calories. And I don't think that life should be a perpetual unpleasant experience(dieting stress, bulking stress etc.).
Of course that doesn't mean I think that gains beyond 2lbs/week at most are desirable/possible without significant fat gain in a natural trainee, so don't mistake my position for one that is apologetic for pigging out.
scientific muscle
New Member
Morgoth, I think what he is trying to say is that faster bulking = more fat gain and that is a fact to certain degree.
An extreme example for illustrative purposes:
Trainee A gains 1 pound/week while training and gains 65% muscle/ 35% fat.
Trainee B eats like a hog and gains 4 pounds/week while training and gains 20% muscle/ 80% fat.
The numbers are just arbitrary of course, but the point is Trainee A bulks slowly and gains less fat in the process.
Slow bulking/ slow cutting are usually superior for partitioning reasons.
An extreme example for illustrative purposes:
Trainee A gains 1 pound/week while training and gains 65% muscle/ 35% fat.
Trainee B eats like a hog and gains 4 pounds/week while training and gains 20% muscle/ 80% fat.
The numbers are just arbitrary of course, but the point is Trainee A bulks slowly and gains less fat in the process.
Slow bulking/ slow cutting are usually superior for partitioning reasons.
bluejacket
New Member
i think one of the key things to remember is the individuality of your p-ratio. from lyles own writing/research (also in the link LOL provided), he mentions 80-85% of your p-ratio out of your control (genetics, hormones etc etc). things like w/o style and freq., diet, working with your insuline (in)sensitivity are ways to effect the other 15-20%. assuming no drugs at all here.
examples btw. lifter A and lifter B will always be somewhat diff.(regardless of how similar we make the variables) because lifter A and B will always be diff. (genetics, p-ratio, insuline sens. etc etc).
now the diff between lifter A (with a good lifting sched/wgt/effort) on a standard, serious (but not crazy) bulk.....say 500 to 1000 cals over maint. and the same lifter A on a slow bulk (2-400 cal overage) using CKD or IF or any other diet properly tuned into HIS needs should expect only a 15-20% improvement on his ability to gain muscle over fat. if you gain 2lbs of fat for every 1lb muscle then that is your p-ratio. gaining slower, adding more cardio, working with insuline senst. issues, eating cleaner, lifting heavier or more often, etc etc, all of those strategies can possibly improve your ratio (again, 20% at best) but it will not re-work to the point where you gain 5lbs of muscle for each lb of fat.
imo, the real "gains" for those with avg to poor p-ratios can be found over time. if your willing work to find a good diet and w/o combination that really does effect that 20% then over time your musculature will improve. it wont be at the rate of others with better ratios but then again if you have a better then avg. p-ratio you probably wouldnt be wondering about or looking into any this.........just lift some wgts and eat some food..how hard can that be. for some it really is that simple, for others not so much.
now im certainly no expert. i have more of the read, write, regurgitate type of knowledge. most of whats in this post is stuff ive read somewhere and/or has been from personal exper. if anything ive written is off the mark from what lyle or others have posted/written (actual research) then pls correct. id hate to have the wrong info and hate even more to pass it on.
good luck
examples btw. lifter A and lifter B will always be somewhat diff.(regardless of how similar we make the variables) because lifter A and B will always be diff. (genetics, p-ratio, insuline sens. etc etc).
now the diff between lifter A (with a good lifting sched/wgt/effort) on a standard, serious (but not crazy) bulk.....say 500 to 1000 cals over maint. and the same lifter A on a slow bulk (2-400 cal overage) using CKD or IF or any other diet properly tuned into HIS needs should expect only a 15-20% improvement on his ability to gain muscle over fat. if you gain 2lbs of fat for every 1lb muscle then that is your p-ratio. gaining slower, adding more cardio, working with insuline senst. issues, eating cleaner, lifting heavier or more often, etc etc, all of those strategies can possibly improve your ratio (again, 20% at best) but it will not re-work to the point where you gain 5lbs of muscle for each lb of fat.
imo, the real "gains" for those with avg to poor p-ratios can be found over time. if your willing work to find a good diet and w/o combination that really does effect that 20% then over time your musculature will improve. it wont be at the rate of others with better ratios but then again if you have a better then avg. p-ratio you probably wouldnt be wondering about or looking into any this.........just lift some wgts and eat some food..how hard can that be. for some it really is that simple, for others not so much.
now im certainly no expert. i have more of the read, write, regurgitate type of knowledge. most of whats in this post is stuff ive read somewhere and/or has been from personal exper. if anything ive written is off the mark from what lyle or others have posted/written (actual research) then pls correct. id hate to have the wrong info and hate even more to pass it on.
good luck
Morgoth the Dark Enemy
New Member
<div>
(scientific muscle @ Oct. 31 2007,18:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Morgoth, I think what he is trying to say is that faster bulking = more fat gain and that is a fact to certain degree.
An extreme example for illustrative purposes:
Trainee A gains 1 pound/week while training and gains 65% muscle/ 35% fat.
Trainee B eats like a hog and gains 4 pounds/week while training and gains 20% muscle/ 80% fat.
The numbers are just arbitrary of course, but the point is Trainee A bulks slowly and gains less fat in the process.
Slow bulking/ slow cutting are usually superior for partitioning reasons.</div>
I don't disagree with this...but I fail to see how this negates the need for cutting, no matter how you go about optimizing each calorie. Obviously there's a rate limiting factor involved in protein synthesis-you can only gain so much muscle, so obviously eating an arseload of calories would be quite counterproductive. Heck, even on AAS, it would be counterproductive.
Consider another aspect:under about 10% BF, your body's hormonal profile is suboptimal for gaining muscle due to about a zillion reasons that are irrelevant to the current discussion. It's safe to assume that one cuts to 6-7% in order to get proper abz, yes?So, at least some ammount of fat-gain is not only inevitable, but it's also desirable.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this:I'm not arguing against Colby's support for a CONTROLLED bulk, that's pretty much a no-brainer. What I'm saying(and, sadly, reality seems to agree) is that no ammount of analism WRT eating-be it eating clean, draconic calorie counting whatever-will sidestep your body's natural propensity for adding fat in a positive calorie balance scenario. As well, there's actually little that can be adjusted WRT partitioning, most of it is genetically set in stone.
Finally, summing all of the above, one must also consider the suckiness of doing some lukewarm thing over long stretches of time:think minimal deficit dieting, minimal excedent bulking. Whilst for the dieting aspect there are few things that can be done, asides from not getting hugely fat in the first place, at least on the bulking side of things stuff can be made more fun by being somewhat more lax, whilst still keeping tabs on your BF.
The issue may stem that I associate slow-bulking with the notions propagated by Mentzer and some others like Shugart involving a very very reduced caloric excedent, whilst Colby may simply be talking about the same thing that I'm talking about, namely a controlled bulking cycle. In which case, I'd be quite silly really
(scientific muscle @ Oct. 31 2007,18:46)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Morgoth, I think what he is trying to say is that faster bulking = more fat gain and that is a fact to certain degree.
An extreme example for illustrative purposes:
Trainee A gains 1 pound/week while training and gains 65% muscle/ 35% fat.
Trainee B eats like a hog and gains 4 pounds/week while training and gains 20% muscle/ 80% fat.
The numbers are just arbitrary of course, but the point is Trainee A bulks slowly and gains less fat in the process.
Slow bulking/ slow cutting are usually superior for partitioning reasons.</div>
I don't disagree with this...but I fail to see how this negates the need for cutting, no matter how you go about optimizing each calorie. Obviously there's a rate limiting factor involved in protein synthesis-you can only gain so much muscle, so obviously eating an arseload of calories would be quite counterproductive. Heck, even on AAS, it would be counterproductive.
Consider another aspect:under about 10% BF, your body's hormonal profile is suboptimal for gaining muscle due to about a zillion reasons that are irrelevant to the current discussion. It's safe to assume that one cuts to 6-7% in order to get proper abz, yes?So, at least some ammount of fat-gain is not only inevitable, but it's also desirable.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this:I'm not arguing against Colby's support for a CONTROLLED bulk, that's pretty much a no-brainer. What I'm saying(and, sadly, reality seems to agree) is that no ammount of analism WRT eating-be it eating clean, draconic calorie counting whatever-will sidestep your body's natural propensity for adding fat in a positive calorie balance scenario. As well, there's actually little that can be adjusted WRT partitioning, most of it is genetically set in stone.
Finally, summing all of the above, one must also consider the suckiness of doing some lukewarm thing over long stretches of time:think minimal deficit dieting, minimal excedent bulking. Whilst for the dieting aspect there are few things that can be done, asides from not getting hugely fat in the first place, at least on the bulking side of things stuff can be made more fun by being somewhat more lax, whilst still keeping tabs on your BF.
The issue may stem that I associate slow-bulking with the notions propagated by Mentzer and some others like Shugart involving a very very reduced caloric excedent, whilst Colby may simply be talking about the same thing that I'm talking about, namely a controlled bulking cycle. In which case, I'd be quite silly really