Guys with big arms. How?

Is it in archives somewhere? How long ago was it? I could be lucky and dig it up. His deletions could have been mistaken for moderating out people mentioning competitive ideas or links, he does often delete those from his blog. The truth is people following Lyle's advice lose fat, and people following Brad's advice lose fat, so I'm having a hard time understanding how either one of them could be fundamentally wrong.

There is a whole thread about this on Lyle's mean forum. Basically there isn't an excuse for what happened. You lose an argument and suddenly the argument disappears? That's not moderation.

As for the fat loss thing... as I've been telling you for a few years now, it's all about calories in vs calories out. That's why any diet that has you eating under maintenance is going to result in fat loss.

Because I got very fat, probably 20-25%. My waist was 39" at height 67.3". Now it's 35", and still going, by simply eating less (I don't do any kind of fasting except for night's sleep).

Yes, and you admittedly did not track calories at all. As I told you, you would have been able to bulk for longer with less fat gain if you counted calories. You have enough time in each day to do it, you are choosing not to out of laziness. As Borge pointed out, bulks where you do not track calories result in excessive fat gain.

But the fact is, you did gain strength and size, so obviously bulking works. You just need to be more disciplined with it.
 
There are plenty of examples of people on this forum at this very moment who have done this with success. Nativetroutbum is one that comes to mind right off the top of my head, he is considering ending his bulk soon but has made tremendous gains without turning into a fat slob and he is still making gains. Sci is another example of someone who is doing this right now. I helped him set up a proper bulk with a reasonable surplus, along with a solid training plan and now he is the biggest he's ever been without being the fattest he's ever been.

You yourself have bulked with reasonable success even though you did not do it optimally by controlling calories appropriately, so why are you even arguing against the methods with you yourself have used??

Thanks for the shout-out! :o) I've been carefully executing my diet and my training. I dont eat any junk, but i ensure that I get "enough" calories over maintenance so that I can grow. I've moved from 165 to about 181 since last August. Sure I gained some fat, but I also gained some good muscle and a great deal of strength relatively speaking. I probably started around 14%bf and now sit around 15%bf. I think 'bulking' seems to get dangerous when folks think they can eat anything and everything when trying to add weight. If I had eaten cheeseburgers and french fries at every meal, and had ice cream for dessert every night, I would have definitely gained weight but I would have gained a lot more fat. For me, planning and calculating my daily calories has been critical, estimates just don't cut it. Wild, undisciplined "bulking" will make you fat. Careful, planned, disciplined "bulking" has worked relatively well for me.
 
I like that term "disciplined bulking" Mr. Trout. I am not sure if you or Totz used it first but I may have to steal it from time-to-time. Just plain "bulking" makes me think of Hostess Cupcakes! :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is a whole thread about this on Lyle's mean forum. Basically there isn't an excuse for what happened. You lose an argument and suddenly the argument disappears? That's not moderation.
Ok I looked up the word "pilon" on Lyle's forum. Found stuff like:

Screw Brad Pilon. I was writing about this 10 years before he had written his stupid little books. They all just stole these ideas from me.

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?p=219678

Is this all he got? Arguing who was the first kid on the block to write something? That's at least childish.
BTW, it would be funny to see Lyle prove Brad wrong if, as he said, Brad's thoughts were stolen from him.
It may very well be that they studied the same literature. They even live in the same country :)

ColinBlueMoon
user_offline.gif


Senior Member


Not eating for 24 hours won't kill you or harm you in any way. I doubt humans would've survived as a species if we couldn't handle one day of not eating. I don't remember Lyle ever saying anything was wrong with the approach. Use whatever works for you. If you're losing muscle or gaining fat, then obviously it isn't working.

lylemcd
user_offline.gif


Administrator


I'm fairly sure that I opined that eating a single meal per day (ala ESE) was not ideal for muscle gain and that stoomc is reading way more than that simple statement into it.

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/showthread.php?p=201128

Just Lyle's opinion on inapplicability of 24 hour fasts for muscle growth.
Borge has said same thing: protein breakdown starts to kick in about 16-18 hours into a fast (***I wonder if this study ever considered resistance training individuals, as priorities are shifted towards building or maintaining muscle to sustain future strains for them, so our body becomes reluctant to lose muscle***).
Whatever the truth is, what matters in the long run is if one is able to put on muscle using the approach, not short term fluctuations. And Brad says he has put several pounds over the past couple of years while maintaining his leanness. He believes diet should be used to lose fat, exercise should be used to build & maintain muscle and surplus has no importance there.

As for the fat loss thing... as I've been telling you for a few years now, it's all about calories in vs calories out. That's why any diet that has you eating under maintenance is going to result in fat loss.
Yes, and it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that: meal timing, food restriction etc. are all secondary to this. Simple deficit will do, provided you get enough protein (70-120 gr/day for a natural). And you can still eat fast food or pizza if you like as long as the overall trend is downwards. This is the best thing I like in Brad's work.
 
Last edited:
The other relevant factor is that you just haven't progressed that far yet. There's no skipping progression in BB'ing//getting bigger. You're on your way, keep doing it. Oh yeh, eat more.
 
The other relevant factor is that you just haven't progressed that far yet. There's no skipping progression in BB'ing//getting bigger. You're on your way, keep doing it.
Eating for more weight is a mixed blessing. I'd rather gain muscle while staying relatively lean (well below 50% height/waist ratio), than add 3/4th of an inch to my arm (most of which is probably fat+glycogen+water) together with a 57-58% waist.


Oh yeh, eat more.
Nope, eat less ;)
 
Another well intended thread hijacked and gone awry. For the sake of original posters, we should probably ignore attempts at hijacking and stick to the original topic. There is plenty of room to start threads on other topics.
 
Wow! I think my arms just gained an inch reading the last handful of posts in this thread! Is that due to IFPE? (Internet Forum Popeye Effect)
 
LOL, I always suspected that you were genetically gifted and your last post proves it! 1" in one day. You should be writing for M&F! :cool:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which is essentially eating at maintenance, no matter how it may be defined? Wow. Remember when you saw Brad Pilon write essentially the same thing - eating sensibly at maintenance and fasting once a week to keep fat growth in check - you then said it's impossible to grow muscle without eating in surplus.

This is a stupid assertion. You may as well be arguing that 1 = 2, because 1 is near 2 so therefore they're similar enough that they're basically the same thing so 1 = 2.

Controlled bulk =/= maintenance. If you're bulking, you aren't at maintenance. If you're maintenance, you aren't bulking. They're mutually exclusive in every respect.


You became fat because you didn't do a good enough job managing your calories. That sucks. Get over it and learn from your mistakes.
 
This is a stupid assertion. You may as well be arguing that 1 = 2, because 1 is near 2 so therefore they're similar enough that they're basically the same thing so 1 = 2.

Controlled bulk =/= maintenance. If you're bulking, you aren't at maintenance. If you're maintenance, you aren't bulking. They're mutually exclusive in every respect.
Now, isn't THIS a stupid assertion? If you're working out and your weight doesn't change from week to week beyond +/- 2-3 lbs fluctuations, you ARE pretty much at maintenance, period. Muscle slowly grows AT maintenance (consisting of adequate protein), fat grows at a surplus.

You became fat because you didn't do a good enough job managing your calories.
Indeed, I became fat because I overate on purpose some time in the past. It takes a person to overeat by a mere 500 kcals once or twice a week while eating roughly at maintenance the other days, to eventually build up fat. I probably ate even more than that, more often.
 
Last edited:
This is a stupid assertion. You may as well be arguing that 1 = 2, because 1 is near 2 so therefore they're similar enough that they're basically the same thing so 1 = 2.

Controlled bulk =/= maintenance. If you're bulking, you aren't at maintenance. If you're maintenance, you aren't bulking. They're mutually exclusive in every respect.
Now, isn't THIS a stupid assertion? If you're working out and your weight doesn't change from week to week beyond +/- 2-3 lbs fluctuations, you ARE pretty much at maintenance, period. Muscle slowly grows AT maintenance (consisting of adequate protein), fat grows at a surplus.

2-3lbs a week? Either way? Over how long a period?

It sounds to me like you are someone who has never tried to track calorie intake accurately. Of course, it's impossible to be exact under normal daily living conditions, but you can make some fairly consistent approximations each day. There is no way that your actual bw should be fluctuating by +/- 2-3lb a week if you are counting calories carefully. To me this just indicates that you are doing a lot of guessing and/or taking bw measurements at inconsistent times of day where changes in water weight are skewing your readings.

You became fat because you didn't do a good enough job managing your calories.
Indeed, I became fat because I overate on purpose some time in the past. It takes a person to overeat by a mere 500 kcals once or twice a week while eating roughly at maintenance the other days, to eventually build up fat. I probably ate even more than that, more often.

One person's fat is another person's skinny. Too vague. If a person is attempting to add lean mass through resistance training then, newb gains and people with >20% bf aside, they will have to consume enough extra calories to grow larger and heavier. Recomposition is very hard to do once you are a seasoned lifter so if you don't consume over-maintenance cals you will be on a long journey to frustration.

Over maintenance by 1000 Cals a week will make you fat? Really?

Say you weigh 200 lb and your maintenance Cals per day are 3500,

(I'll assume adding a pound of fat in a week is going to take ~3500 Cals over maintenance and adding a pound of muscle is going to take ~2500 Cals over maintenance.)

Eating 1000 Cals over maintenance for a week is going to allow you to potentially add bodyweight in the region of 1/3 lb. If your training is dialled in for hypertrophy, some of that will be lean mass and some will be fat mass—according to p-ratio and the kind of training you are doing. It won't all be fat and it won't all be lean mass.

Let's say, for you, it's a 50:50 ratio. Over the course of a month you will have potentially added 1 1/3 lb body weight with 2/3 lb being muscle and 2/3 lb being fat. You now weigh 201 1/3 lb. Your maintenance level has now gone up, so if you don't increase your cals over what you thought was your (maintenance + 1000) Cals/week you will add less body weight the following month. And so on, until you don't increase body weight any further because your original (maintenance + 1000) Cals is now your maintenance.

There is no way you are going to get fat in some sort of out-of-control fashion if you bulk sensibly.

In reality it would be impossibly hard to keep track of all the variables and to ensure you gained lean mass optimally all the time while, at the same time, gaining as little fat as possible. This being the case, surely it makes sense to consume slightly over estimated requirements for growth, even if this results in a bit more fat being deposited along the way? It really isn't that hard to shave off a few pounds of unwanted fat while retaining most of your hard-earned lean tissue.

I think my arms just grew again.
 
2-3lbs a week? Either way? Over how long a period?

It sounds to me like you are someone who has never tried to track calorie intake accurately. Of course, it's impossible to be exact under normal daily living conditions, but you can make some fairly consistent approximations each day. There is no way that your actual bw should be fluctuating by +/- 2-3lb a week if you are counting calories carefully. To me this just indicates that you are doing a lot of guessing and/or taking bw measurements at inconsistent times of day where changes in water weight are skewing your readings.
2-3lbs a day to account for occasional binges, you don't have to let life pass by while you're leaning out :) You see, what charts or calculators tell us about our caloric needs are only approximations, nothing more. Eventually what matters is the amount of food that doesn't cause you to gain weight (and, more importantly, waist circumference). A calculator can't know your activity levels, even if it has ways to enter each activity level & timing, it may overestimate your needs. YOU can't know how much you spend for sure. Every day is different. If all you're looking for is a ballpark figure from which you can start tweaking intake up or down, your normal daily food is as good as any. To cut the long story short, this whole idea of meticulous calorie tracking while steering clear of certain foods is overhyped.

There is no way you are going to get fat in some sort of out-of-control fashion if you bulk sensibly.
Yup, and that is called eating at maintenance. Any food you eat over that will get you fat and make you compensate on another day by eating a bit less.

Measure mass increases on your arms, chest, shoulders, thighs, etc. Measure fat increases on your waist.

surely it makes sense to consume slightly over estimated requirements for growth, even if this results in a bit more fat being deposited along the way? It really isn't that hard to shave off a few pounds of unwanted fat while retaining most of your hard-earned lean tissue.
Why do that if you can thwart fat gains altogether? Why spend more money on more food to make you fatter, with the idea to throw the fat away later?
 
Last edited:
2-3lbs a day to account for occasional binges, you don't have to let life pass by while you're leaning out :)
...
surely it makes sense to consume slightly over estimated requirements for growth, even if this results in a bit more fat being deposited along the way? It really isn't that hard to shave off a few pounds of unwanted fat while retaining most of your hard-earned lean tissue.
Why do that if you can thwart fat gains altogether? Why spend more money on more food to make you fatter, with the idea to throw the fat away later?

Spending more money on food to make you fatter?! Haha. If you manage to thwart fat gains altogether you will most likely thwart any gains in lean mass too, unless you are in that >20% body fat bracket we spoke about earlier. Why waste time and money on training for hypertrophy and then not allow yourself to make gains through a lack of available nutrients?

Why spend more money on food? You answered your own question when you said:
you don't have to let life pass by while you're leaning out
just apply the same reasoning to muscular hypertrophy. :)

All the best with your take on things.
 
Yup, and that is called eating at maintenance. Any food you eat over that will get you fat and make you compensate on another day by eating a bit less.

I'm not really sure where you are getting confused about this.

Maintenance cannot ever mean gaining weight. That is not the definition of maintenance. Maybe you should check a dictionary.

Maintenance means maintaining your weight, ergo not gaining. Ergo, your defintion of maintenance is incorrect. Everyone in the entire world except you and Brad Pilon realizes that BMR means the amount of calories needed to maintain weight. Apparently you and he both fail to realize this. BMR never takes into account the amount of calories needed to build muscle. You cannot change the definitons of BMR and of the word "maintain." Maintain literally means keeping things the same. It does not mean "adding muscle to the body."

Furthermore, both you and Brad seem to believe it is possible to gain only muscle. This never happens. Any weight you gain, no matter what, will always consist of some degree of both fat and muscle. Always. Even if you weren't lifting weight, you would never gain pure fat. Even if you were on tons of steroids, you will never gain only pure muscle.
 
Totentanz, how many calories are required to make your muscles grow once you're past growing-up age? Did you ever think of how many calories you ate when your body, including bones, organs, muscles, skin was still growing? Despite everything, we grew. Why do you now think that it would take any measurable daily amount of extra calories to make your muscles grow in response to training? You're right, I prefer to think of a neutral fat balance as "maintenance" - same amount stored and burnt over short term. Whatever your muscle volume is any given day you're eating enough to maintain it, since you know that anything extra is going to get deposited in your fat stores. Muscles becoming bigger to accommodate for bigger loads is simply the "new" you. Of course your maintenance grows as your muscles grow bigger, but I don't think we should overfeed our bodies in advance, expecting to help them get bigger. All the extra food.. you guessed it, is probably stored as fat. You can't eat extra and expect muscles to deposit extra protein in them. They are not a storage unit, as opposed to our fat stores.

p.s.: needless to say, this all relates to folks training naturally.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of how you decide to eat for hypertrophy, the bottom line is we all have our own genetic potential for arms.
Sorry to say Rihad, but you probably just don't have the genetics for big arms, and no amount of diet tweaking or training tweaking is going to change that.
On the other hand, if you listen to reason, and cut down to a lean state, and then started slowly bulking up again while doing HST with arms as priority, you could at least maximize your own genetic potential for arm size....
...or you could just stay the same and keep eating at maintenance and you'll never grow, but keep spinning your wheels for months on end, and watch as your arms stay exactly the same...
Either way. ;)
 
Last edited:
Regardless of how you decide to eat for hypertrophy, the bottom line is we all have our own genetic potential for arms.
Sorry to say Rihad, but you probably just don't have the genetics for big arms, and no amount of diet tweaking or training tweaking is going to change that.
They keep growing slowly yet consistently, they're just not big :) Maybe I just got too ahead of myself.

On the other hand, if you listen to reason, and cut down to a lean state
I'm on my way :)

and then started slowly bulking up
...or you could just stay the same and keep eating at maintenance and you'll never grow

It may be that I refer to as "maintenance" to what you call "bulking". How do you define maintenance then (assuming ongoing training)? Ah, let me guess: in your speak, "maintenance" is whatever you eat while on SD (no training) to keep the weight stable, while "bulking" is what you eat while working out? Well, big surprise: they are BOTH maintenance - in the latter you eat something extra to cover exercise energy needs. You don't eat OVER that in any case. Simple definition: maintenance is as much food as possible that doesn't cause you to gain or lose fat. End of story.
 
Last edited:
Ah, let me guess: in your speak, "maintenance" is whatever you eat while on SD (no training) to keep the weight stable, while "bulking" is what you eat while working out?
No need to guess! You still don't seem to be able to grasp that bulking generally refers to a period of time where you are consuming in excess of your estimated daily calorific requirements (ie. maintenance cals). It's about consuming above/over/more than maintenance cals! If you could calculate exactly how many cals you were burning on any one day then in order to bulk (according to the usual definition of the term as I understand it) you would need to consume more than that amount (ie. over maintenance).

Simple definition: maintenance is as much food as possible that doesn't cause you to gain or lose fat. End of story.
So you have redefined maintenance to mean "maintenance of body fat"?
You mean you expect to gradually gain lean mass while not gaining (or losing) any fat? In which case your total body fat percentage will be gradually decreasing the whole time your are gaining lean mass. ie. you will be getting leaner the whole time you are adding muscle! On some other planet, in some other universe, this may work but here on earth I have yet to hear of a single case where this has ever worked for anyone (ignoring relatively brief attempts at body-recompostion and morbidly obese cases). To me, you seem to be living in cloud shiny cuckoo land. :)

What do your arms measure now?
How much do you weigh?

If you maintained reasonably symmetrical proportions, it might well take 10lb of additional lean tissue to add about an inch to your upper-arm measurement (according to various calculators).

For me, attaining 18" arms (if it was genetically possible) would mean I would most likely need to add ~20lb of muscle to my frame. That's a serious amount! I'd need to weigh around 205-210lb at ~10% bf to manage that. Attempting to gain this much mass by being extremely careful not to add any fat sounds like a lifetime of frustration.

Like most things in life, if you really want something to happen, you will do what you need to do to get the job done. If you aren't really bothered, you'll talk about it a lot and do very little. It won't happen but you won't really care.
 
Last edited:
Totentanz, how many calories are required to make your muscles grow once you're past growing-up age?

Nobody, including your messiah Pilon knows the answer to this. Yet. We know it takes roughly 3500 calories over maintenance to add a pound of bodyweight each week. That is bodyweight, not muscle.

Did you ever think of how many calories you ate when your body, including bones, organs, muscles, skin was still growing? Despite everything, we grew.

Obviously.

Why do you now think that it would take any measurable daily amount of extra calories to make your muscles grow in response to training?

Because we are not pubescent adolescent children. Because physics says you cannot create matter or energy out of nothing. Unless you know some sort of magic that allows you to bypass the laws of the universe, which since you got fat by not counting calories, obviously you do not.

You're right, I prefer to think of a neutral fat balance as "maintenance" - same amount stored and burnt over short term.

Did you look the word "maintain" up yet?

Obviously not.

You can think it means whatever you want, doesn't change the fact that the word has a definiton and you are incorrect in what you are defining it as.

Whatever your muscle volume is any given day you're eating enough to maintain it, since you know that anything extra is going to get deposited in your fat stores.

Wrong. Anything you eat beyond maintenance is going to go to both fat and lean mass stores always, regardless of whether you are lifting or not. Otherwise why do obese individuals have more lean mass than people who are not obese, despite the lack of training? Why do sumo wrestlers have more muscle than most bodybuilders, despite no weight training?

I'm not sure why you are blindly clinging to this belief when it defies logic and reason. We know for a fact that calories beyond maintenance go toward increasing fat stores and also to build new lean mass, we have directly observed this in clinical settings and it is a repeatable effect. That meets the parameters of a scientifically sound idea. The idea that we can build muscle without fat has not been observed in a clinical setting and is not something that can be repeated by anyone under clinical conditions, therefore it is pseudoscience and is a waste of time.

Of course your maintenance grows as your muscles grow bigger, but I don't think we should overfeed our bodies in advance, expecting to help them get bigger.

This is just retarded. How can your body become bigger without additional matter and energy to create that additional matter and energy from? You cannot create mass out of thin air. Are you a breatharian now too? Do you believe you can inhale prana out of the air to create mass in your body rather than eating actual proteins, fats and carbohydrates?

Looks like someone needs to revisit the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot create something out of nothing. You do not create muscle in your body, you convert incoming amino acids, etc into skeletal protein.
 
Back
Top