Adarq.org
Performance Area => Article & Video Discussion => Topic started by: steven-miller on July 13, 2012, 12:04:19 pm
-
http://startingstrength.com/index.php/site/sss_mg3
Mark Rippetoe and Marty Gallagher talking. One of the topics discussed is strength and bodyweight and many of you should listen to what is said. You do not get such a perspective elsewhere but it might be critically important to your strength training success.
This one was my favorite so far, but if you have not yet, you should check out the other interviews as well. They are quite diverse, so you should find something that is interesting to you.
-
If you watch it, can I get a TLWW? Thanks.
-
50 minutes of mark rippetoe talking?
TL;DW
-
Well, it is your loss :)
-
those strength orges are motivating.
in a nutshell
- massive caloric surplus + heavy weight training to get to muscle building mode, (and gain fat at the same time)
- weight training + caloric restriction to shed fat and maintain as much strength/muscle mass as possible to make to weight class.
this is the most efficient way naturally to improve the poundages. most people just find excuses not to do the eating part because (as they say), people want to see their abs.
they bashed me at the start - "if you are 5'10 170lb, you do not have enough muscle mass per height.." lol
-
(http://startingstrength.com/images/100301_front.jpg)
-
GOMAD, BRAH!!!!1!!1!!!!1
-
TheSituation is completely right to post that picture. It can serve a purpose for testing yourself. If you cannot become friends with the idea to have as much bodyfat as the guy in the picture at the end of your novice progression, and therefore for a limited amount of time, you are not psychologically prepared to do what is necessary to gain the most strength in a 4-9 month frame that you will ever, in your whole life, experience.
Of course there is individual variation and some people will not get this fat. I personally squatted over 400 for sets of 5 with less body-fat. But a normal guy, who has never been training in his life before and is not starting out as an athlete and who does everything right will probably, for some time, look more like the person on the picture. An athletic person will end up a little leaner than that, but will still carry some bodyfat.
If you are afraid of that, you are the type of person talked about in the beginning of the interview. In that case I wish you good luck with becoming strong. It might be very hard for you.
-
Let me get this straight. Rip punted to a guy who knows his shit, but you got no suitable response. Feeling rejected and dejected, you came here. Rest assured my friend you came to the right place. We're the best of the best. A virtual cornucopia of training knowledges, especially me. I'm real good. The best. How do you think these other guy's got good? That's right, they listened to me. And if you was smart, you'd listen to me too. What I am going to say may come off as crass, but you've got broad shoulders and you're gonna take it and like it. Got that? Good.
The Texas Method is for REAL men who want to get BIG and STRONG. It is not for Fancy Boys who are worried about body fat, or their waist size. You wanna be a Metro Sexual, go buy a head band, leotards, Heavy Hands and GTFO. We're real men here, that's right, that's what I said. Look your 6'-1" and 265lb, with what I would term marginal strength at best. I myself started out at 4'-7" and weighed 110 soaking wet. Rode linear progression straight up, did GOMAD and ate like a fucking pig. My life consisted of lifting, eating, shitting and an occasional charity hummer that was thrown my way by some bimbo who wanted to see what type of weapon I was sportin', if you know what I mean. Anyway's, when linear progression ended, I was 4'-6" and 270lb. I lost an inch from spinal compression due to the 500lb squats I was performing for reps. But all that mattered was I was getting BIG and lifting BIG. Yeah I'm short, but I don't take no shit from nobody. You know what I'm saying tough guy? Anyways, then I started Texas Method, which was intense. I ate even more for fear of not recovering from the grueling workouts. I was eating close to 10k calories. I couldn't even sleep at this point because all I was doin' was shitting during the night. Then while I was up I got hungry, so I woke my hoochie momma up and made her cook me a meal to get more calories. Yeah she bitched sometimes, but I told her if she ever wanted me to deliver the goods, she better get her ass otta bed. That lit a fire under her ass let me tell you. Hehe. She knows what a prize she's got in me. Anyways, then I'd hit the gym and the cycle would repeat itself. What I didn't do was prance around like panty waist and worry about getting fat, wondering how many grams of protein I was getting', or what type of carbs I was ingesting. I just wanted to get BIG and STRONG. I used TM for approximately 2 years. At the end of it I was 4'-5 1/4" and 332lb, squating 7 bills and benching a little over 5 wheels. Deadlifts were quasi partials due to my height, but I still managed to pull in the high 7's. You have a problem with me only being able to do partials? I didn't think so. Most importantly I was BIG and STRONG. So if I was you, this is what I'd do. Train hard, there's no such thing as overtraining, only under eating. If all the food binds you up, laxative suppositories are your friend. Now pull yourself up by your thong and GET OUT THERE and TRAIN and EAT - TOUGH GUY!
-
^^^ That guy is most likely on steroids too
I'm fine with being a "fancy boy". I also Bench Press (although my bench is decreasing a little on this cut. losing weight seems to kill my presses) and Deadlift more than you (Your squat blows mine away), while having numerous roadblocks and surgeries, so I think I'm doing just fine with getting strong. You should take some notes from me.
My issue with Ripppetoe is he's delusional about how fat his clients are getting and how little muscle they actually are putting on. You're not gaining 35 pounds of muscle in 3-4 months no matter how much fat you put on. You probably can't even do that with any amount of steroids. Science would say the maximum amount of muscle (not lbm) someone can put on naturally in month is 2 pounds, and that's at a relatively novice stage and good genetics. I agree with eating big, but for naturals once you're getting more than 4000-4500 calories you're at a point of diminishing returns.
And after my "roadblock", I put a little more thought into my health (although not really related) instead of worrying what some fat 60 year old man from Texas thinks. It's not healthy to be that fat. Period
No Silly Bullshit
I use too many parentheses.
-
Let me get this straight. Rip punted to a guy who knows his shit, but you got no suitable response. Feeling rejected and dejected, you came here. Rest assured my friend you came to the right place. We're the best of the best. A virtual cornucopia of training knowledges, especially me. I'm real good. The best. How do you think these other guy's got good? That's right, they listened to me. And if you was smart, you'd listen to me too. What I am going to say may come off as crass, but you've got broad shoulders and you're gonna take it and like it. Got that? Good.
The Texas Method is for REAL men who want to get BIG and STRONG. It is not for Fancy Boys who are worried about body fat, or their waist size. You wanna be a Metro Sexual, go buy a head band, leotards, Heavy Hands and GTFO. We're real men here, that's right, that's what I said. Look your 6'-1" and 265lb, with what I would term marginal strength at best. I myself started out at 4'-7" and weighed 110 soaking wet. Rode linear progression straight up, did GOMAD and ate like a fucking pig. My life consisted of lifting, eating, shitting and an occasional charity hummer that was thrown my way by some bimbo who wanted to see what type of weapon I was sportin', if you know what I mean. Anyway's, when linear progression ended, I was 4'-6" and 270lb. I lost an inch from spinal compression due to the 500lb squats I was performing for reps. But all that mattered was I was getting BIG and lifting BIG. Yeah I'm short, but I don't take no shit from nobody. You know what I'm saying tough guy? Anyways, then I started Texas Method, which was intense. I ate even more for fear of not recovering from the grueling workouts. I was eating close to 10k calories. I couldn't even sleep at this point because all I was doin' was shitting during the night. Then while I was up I got hungry, so I woke my hoochie momma up and made her cook me a meal to get more calories. Yeah she bitched sometimes, but I told her if she ever wanted me to deliver the goods, she better get her ass otta bed. That lit a fire under her ass let me tell you. Hehe. She knows what a prize she's got in me. Anyways, then I'd hit the gym and the cycle would repeat itself. What I didn't do was prance around like panty waist and worry about getting fat, wondering how many grams of protein I was getting', or what type of carbs I was ingesting. I just wanted to get BIG and STRONG. I used TM for approximately 2 years. At the end of it I was 4'-5 1/4" and 332lb, squating 7 bills and benching a little over 5 wheels. Deadlifts were quasi partials due to my height, but I still managed to pull in the high 7's. You have a problem with me only being able to do partials? I didn't think so. Most importantly I was BIG and STRONG. So if I was you, this is what I'd do. Train hard, there's no such thing as overtraining, only under eating. If all the food binds you up, laxative suppositories are your friend. Now pull yourself up by your thong and GET OUT THERE and TRAIN and EAT - TOUGH GUY!
lol'd irl
-
Let me get this straight. Rip punted to a guy who knows his shit, but you got no suitable response. Feeling rejected and dejected, you came here. Rest assured my friend you came to the right place. We're the best of the best. A virtual cornucopia of training knowledges, especially me. I'm real good. The best. How do you think these other guy's got good? That's right, they listened to me. And if you was smart, you'd listen to me too. What I am going to say may come off as crass, but you've got broad shoulders and you're gonna take it and like it. Got that? Good.
The Texas Method is for REAL men who want to get BIG and STRONG. It is not for Fancy Boys who are worried about body fat, or their waist size. You wanna be a Metro Sexual, go buy a head band, leotards, Heavy Hands and GTFO. We're real men here, that's right, that's what I said. Look your 6'-1" and 265lb, with what I would term marginal strength at best. I myself started out at 4'-7" and weighed 110 soaking wet. Rode linear progression straight up, did GOMAD and ate like a fucking pig. My life consisted of lifting, eating, shitting and an occasional charity hummer that was thrown my way by some bimbo who wanted to see what type of weapon I was sportin', if you know what I mean. Anyway's, when linear progression ended, I was 4'-6" and 270lb. I lost an inch from spinal compression due to the 500lb squats I was performing for reps. But all that mattered was I was getting BIG and lifting BIG. Yeah I'm short, but I don't take no shit from nobody. You know what I'm saying tough guy? Anyways, then I started Texas Method, which was intense. I ate even more for fear of not recovering from the grueling workouts. I was eating close to 10k calories. I couldn't even sleep at this point because all I was doin' was shitting during the night. Then while I was up I got hungry, so I woke my hoochie momma up and made her cook me a meal to get more calories. Yeah she bitched sometimes, but I told her if she ever wanted me to deliver the goods, she better get her ass otta bed. That lit a fire under her ass let me tell you. Hehe. She knows what a prize she's got in me. Anyways, then I'd hit the gym and the cycle would repeat itself. What I didn't do was prance around like panty waist and worry about getting fat, wondering how many grams of protein I was getting', or what type of carbs I was ingesting. I just wanted to get BIG and STRONG. I used TM for approximately 2 years. At the end of it I was 4'-5 1/4" and 332lb, squating 7 bills and benching a little over 5 wheels. Deadlifts were quasi partials due to my height, but I still managed to pull in the high 7's. You have a problem with me only being able to do partials? I didn't think so. Most importantly I was BIG and STRONG. So if I was you, this is what I'd do. Train hard, there's no such thing as overtraining, only under eating. If all the food binds you up, laxative suppositories are your friend. Now pull yourself up by your thong and GET OUT THERE and TRAIN and EAT - TOUGH GUY!
lol'd irl
You're just a pretty boy metrosexual
-
Let me get this straight. Rip punted to a guy who knows his shit, but you got no suitable response. Feeling rejected and dejected, you came here. Rest assured my friend you came to the right place. We're the best of the best. A virtual cornucopia of training knowledges, especially me. I'm real good. The best. How do you think these other guy's got good? That's right, they listened to me. And if you was smart, you'd listen to me too. What I am going to say may come off as crass, but you've got broad shoulders and you're gonna take it and like it. Got that? Good.
The Texas Method is for REAL men who want to get BIG and STRONG. It is not for Fancy Boys who are worried about body fat, or their waist size. You wanna be a Metro Sexual, go buy a head band, leotards, Heavy Hands and GTFO. We're real men here, that's right, that's what I said. Look your 6'-1" and 265lb, with what I would term marginal strength at best. I myself started out at 4'-7" and weighed 110 soaking wet. Rode linear progression straight up, did GOMAD and ate like a fucking pig. My life consisted of lifting, eating, shitting and an occasional charity hummer that was thrown my way by some bimbo who wanted to see what type of weapon I was sportin', if you know what I mean. Anyway's, when linear progression ended, I was 4'-6" and 270lb. I lost an inch from spinal compression due to the 500lb squats I was performing for reps. But all that mattered was I was getting BIG and lifting BIG. Yeah I'm short, but I don't take no shit from nobody. You know what I'm saying tough guy? Anyways, then I started Texas Method, which was intense. I ate even more for fear of not recovering from the grueling workouts. I was eating close to 10k calories. I couldn't even sleep at this point because all I was doin' was shitting during the night. Then while I was up I got hungry, so I woke my hoochie momma up and made her cook me a meal to get more calories. Yeah she bitched sometimes, but I told her if she ever wanted me to deliver the goods, she better get her ass otta bed. That lit a fire under her ass let me tell you. Hehe. She knows what a prize she's got in me. Anyways, then I'd hit the gym and the cycle would repeat itself. What I didn't do was prance around like panty waist and worry about getting fat, wondering how many grams of protein I was getting', or what type of carbs I was ingesting. I just wanted to get BIG and STRONG. I used TM for approximately 2 years. At the end of it I was 4'-5 1/4" and 332lb, squating 7 bills and benching a little over 5 wheels. Deadlifts were quasi partials due to my height, but I still managed to pull in the high 7's. You have a problem with me only being able to do partials? I didn't think so. Most importantly I was BIG and STRONG. So if I was you, this is what I'd do. Train hard, there's no such thing as overtraining, only under eating. If all the food binds you up, laxative suppositories are your friend. Now pull yourself up by your thong and GET OUT THERE and TRAIN and EAT - TOUGH GUY!
lol'd irl
You're just a pretty boy metrosexual
Peer pressure to gomad wont work.
-
odds of denisbeck being a real person and not merely a fantastic troll: 50/50.
-
^^^ That guy is most likely on steroids too
I'm fine with being a "fancy boy". I also Bench Press (although my bench is decreasing a little on this cut. losing weight seems to kill my presses) and Deadlift more than you (Your squat blows mine away), while having numerous roadblocks and surgeries, so I think I'm doing just fine with getting strong. You should take some notes from me.
My issue with Ripppetoe is he's delusional about how fat his clients are getting and how little muscle they actually are putting on. You're not gaining 35 pounds of muscle in 3-4 months no matter how much fat you put on. You probably can't even do that with any amount of steroids. Science would say the maximum amount of muscle (not lbm) someone can put on naturally in month is 2 pounds, and that's at a relatively novice stage and good genetics. I agree with eating big, but for naturals once you're getting more than 4000-4500 calories you're at a point of diminishing returns.
And after my "roadblock", I put a little more thought into my health (although not really related) instead of worrying what some fat 60 year old man from Texas thinks. It's not healthy to be that fat. Period
No Silly Bullshit
I use too many parentheses.
I am fine with whatever number "science" thinks is possible to gain as muscle mass per month (despite the fact that I am not buying this result/conclusion and I am ready to argue about the actual papers and scientific methodology, but that is really tangential to this debate). What I do know is that people that have problems putting on strength as novices are eating too little. It does not matter whether that is the result of too little muscle increase or whatever magical mechanism one suggests of being responsible. What can be universally observed is that underweight people that won't eat do not gain strength (bar a very small percentage maybe). That is really all that is relevant to validate the points in the interview.
-
THERE IS A HAPPY MEDIUM BETWEEN NOT EATING ENOUGH AND BLOWING UP LIKE A FUCKING TRUCK TIRE.
-
I don't think you realize how much muscle tissue 2 pounds is. Along with that 2 pounds you're holding .8 pounds more glycogen and 1-3 pounds more water. This is without any fat. That's a ridiculous amount of weight gain when you think about it. Over your time lifting you're not going to put more than 30-40 pounds of MUSCLE on unless you're on steroids. Powerlifters and Bodybuilders are all on steroids and this seems to influence people to think you can gain ridiculous amounts. Look at any natural bodybuilder (ones that are actually natural, not ones that compete in natural bodybuilding), and you'll see they aren't really THAT big.
And I agree beginners eat too little, but they don't need to get fat to get strong like you said. They don't even need to lose their abs which Rippetoe seems to think is ridiculous.
-
Not even Rippetoe can make GOMAD into some manly macho thing. I mean it's milk. Everyone including old grandmas, children and fucking babies drink milk. There is no movie badass with a leather jacket walking into a bar and ordering a pint of the white stuff. I know in some places around the world, there exist dairy beverages with added opium that might come close to making GOMAD more hardcoar. I dunno, maybe Rips followers are onto that already.
Seriously though. I'll speculate that if you're eating 7000 calories a day to gain mad weight, first thing is don't do that. But if you will do it regardless like the guy in the picture, you should do a bodybuilders high volume hypetrophy workout with a zillion sets to gain max muscle, a few sets of 5 will not get it done as well. Or maybe you should do the 5s first, and then the extra pump work? Dunno. At least this approach will burn more calorie spending 2-3 hrs in a gym per session and the rest of the time stuffing your face. All I know is the rip faithful walking into the gym 3x a week and not doing anything all week but a few sets of 5 while eating 7000cal will get really fat. Take the classic Pins Into Pillars squatting program. That has you doing 10 sets of 5 every workout, 3x a week of squats while linearly adding weight every time. I'm going to suggest that will achieve more growth than a coupla sets of 5. Probably still get quite fat but I'm more confident that you'll be a bit more muscular with Pins.
-
I think you guys are still missing the point. I have elaborated on this idea on this board several times now. If, as a novice, you are gaining your 15 lbs per week in the squat and 7.5 lbs per week in the deadlift, powerclean, bench-press and press, you are fine, regardless what you eat. If you stay on your baseline bodyweight, or gain 2 lbs per month, and make ridiculous gains, that is really great for you if you are not also interested in gaining size.
But here is the problem: There are a ton of people that struggle badly to put on strength. And eating more helps them. Now, how MUCH more you need to eat to make consistent progress varies greatly across individuals but can really easily found out via an iterative approach. If you get stuck or can't recover as you should, just eat little bit more. That is not what Rippetoe generally advocates because he knows from experience that people on the internet are usually too dumb to make this happen. So he recommends to just do GOMAD in the case of underweight, young males because this takes care of a large percentage of the necessary calorie, fat and protein intake. So this is the fail-proof approach and guys that follow it and train accordingly make really impressive increases in strength. In fact, they maximize their strength increase, which is really the point of Rippetoe's SS program for novice trainees.
The truth is that guys afraid of losing their abs often are not able to do either of those things. And that is not some kind of dogma made up by Rippetoe, this is just an observation that can and will be made if you are looking.
To address a few specific points:
THERE IS A HAPPY MEDIUM BETWEEN NOT EATING ENOUGH AND BLOWING UP LIKE A FUCKING TRUCK TIRE.
I agree. But the happy medium will not be able to maximize strength gains. I am not suggesting that everyone has to milk out a novice progression to the last pound via eating a ton. But it is helpful to put ones own progress in relation to those that do and see if the typical difference might be worth eating more after all. It is an individual decision and the end of a novice progression is determined by the outcome of such decisions.
I don't think you realize how much muscle tissue 2 pounds is. Along with that 2 pounds you're holding .8 pounds more glycogen and 1-3 pounds more water. This is without any fat. That's a ridiculous amount of weight gain when you think about it. Over your time lifting you're not going to put more than 30-40 pounds of MUSCLE on unless you're on steroids. Powerlifters and Bodybuilders are all on steroids and this seems to influence people to think you can gain ridiculous amounts. Look at any natural bodybuilder (ones that are actually natural, not ones that compete in natural bodybuilding), and you'll see they aren't really THAT big.
And I agree beginners eat too little, but they don't need to get fat to get strong like you said. They don't even need to lose their abs which Rippetoe seems to think is ridiculous.
Natural bodybuilders do not maximize muscle mass increase due to the demands of their competition. Nor do weight-class athletes in other sports. That makes these populations a poor example to demonstrate your point.
If you want to make a point about a maximum possible LBM increase of X lbs per month, then post the scientific evidence and we can discuss whether that conclusion can be validated by the studies methodology, statistical analysis and actual results.
I'll speculate that if you're eating 7000 calories a day to gain mad weight, first thing is don't do that. But if you will do it regardless like the guy in the picture, you should do a bodybuilders high volume hypetrophy workout with a zillion sets to gain max muscle, a few sets of 5 will not get it done as well. Or maybe you should do the 5s first, and then the extra pump work? Dunno. At least this approach will burn more calorie spending 2-3 hrs in a gym per session and the rest of the time stuffing your face. All I know is the rip faithful walking into the gym 3x a week and not doing anything all week but a few sets of 5 while eating 7000cal will get really fat.
You are actually not aware how hard a couple sets of 5 get at the end of a novice progression. You speak from a standpoint of lacking experience and you are not equipped to have this discussion with us in other regards as well. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before you bubble this bullshit.
-
You are actually not aware how hard a couple sets of 5 get at the end of a novice progression. You speak from a standpoint of lacking experience and you are not equipped to have this discussion with us in other regards as well. Do yourself a favor and educate yourself before you bubble this bullshit.
Grinding someone into dust with a heavy 3x5 weight is definitely a hard workout but Pins Into Pillars 10x5 isn't easy either. They're both brutally hard towards the end. I doubt it matters either way, hardness isn't the issue, workload is. You're doing the entire weekly volume of your novice progression program in just any one PiP workout. Same frequency, both linear programs, different initial intensities but they're ramped up linearly as previously mentioned. My claim is the PiP 10x5s will give better mass gains than the 3x5s because of the extra volume when you're eating obscene amounts of foods. Is that bullshit to you? You'll have to explain why.
-
Grinding someone into dust with a heavy 3x5 weight is definitely a hard workout but Pins Into Pillars 10x5 isn't easy either. They're both brutally hard towards the end. I doubt it matters either way, hardness isn't the issue, workload is. You're doing the entire weekly volume of your novice progression program in just any one PiP workout. Same frequency, both linear programs, different initial intensities but they're ramped up linearly as previously mentioned. My claim is the PiP 10x5s will give better mass gains than the 3x5s because of the extra volume when you're eating obscene amounts of foods. Is that bullshit to you? You'll have to explain why.
I have not tried PiP, but have read Pavel's writing about it. I think its focus is different from what is tried to accomplish via SS. The volume is too big for the progression to last nearly as long as 3x5, one will stall much earlier. It is therefore less efficient for strength increases. The idea behind 3x5 is that it is enough volume to drive adaptation till the next work-out, but not much more than that.
Regarding the question which one is better suited for increases in muscle mass, I do not know and this is not what concerns me. I would assume though that 3x5 due to its longer lasting progression would result in more muscle mass increase mid-to-long term, but maybe not short-term. But that is speculation.
-
That's all reasonable. I agree with your points and claims on efficiency. So if the choice over the same time interval is -
More Strength + More Fat + Less Muscle for 3x5 vs
More Muscle + Less Fat + Less Strength for 10x5
My opinion is I'd pick 10x5 here. And I get the feeling a lot of guys here would make the same choice if they realised this tradeoff. You can easily get stronger by using that newly minted muscle after PiP. Do it the Rippetoe way and rock 32% bodyfat and have bigger lifts but it will take you a long time to get rid of the bodyfat and you don't have as much muscle to show at the end of it, that's even supposing you finish the marathon cut it would take to go from 32% to 12% without losing your hard fought gains.
-
That's all reasonable. I agree with your points and claims on efficiency. So if the choice over the same time interval is -
More Strength + More Fat + Less Muscle for 3x5 vs
More Muscle + Less Fat + Less Strength for 10x5
My opinion is I'd pick 10x5 here. And I get the feeling a lot of guys here would make the same choice if they realised this tradeoff. You can easily get stronger by using that newly minted muscle after PiP. Do it the Rippetoe way and rock 32% bodyfat and have bigger lifts but it will take you a long time to get rid of the bodyfat and you don't have as much muscle to show at the end of it, that's even supposing you finish the marathon cut it would take to go from 32% to 12% without losing your hard fought gains.
You are bubbling again. You have neither knowledge nor experience to even argue such a point and you are making shit up as if it was real data. Stop being a nuisance and start listening for a while.
-
But a normal guy, who has never been training in his life before and is not starting out as an athlete and who does everything right will probably, for some time, look more like the person on the picture. An athletic person will end up a little leaner than that, but will still carry some bodyfat.
explain this then. if rippetoes is so efficient why does it have less impressive results in terms of less muscle gain and more fat gain for the normal guy than the athletic one.
-
But a normal guy, who has never been training in his life before and is not starting out as an athlete and who does everything right will probably, for some time, look more like the person on the picture. An athletic person will end up a little leaner than that, but will still carry some bodyfat.
explain this then. if rippetoes is so efficient why does it have less impressive results in terms of less muscle gain and more fat gain for the normal guy than the athletic one.
Because people select themselves into environments where they can experience positive things, such as success. Additionally an environment like competitive sports selects for people with an inherent aptitude to do physical things. Both mechanisms lead to there being more genetic potential in the population of "athletes" compared to the population of "normal guys". Therefore the likelihood of an athlete doing exceptionally well on any program compared to a normal guy is very high.
The bottom line is that you will have to accept a larger gain of body-fat with every pound of muscle if you are a less apt individual compared to the more apt individuals. This is not specific to Rip's program, it is universally true.
-
Natural bodybuilders do not maximize muscle mass increase due to the demands of their competition. Nor do weight-class athletes in other sports. That makes these populations a poor example to demonstrate your point.
Steven, I agree that a lot of people on the internet do not eat enough to gain the strength and muscle mass they could attain with a higher calorie diet. That is going to hold true across averages, the problem is how much MORE calories, and not knowing when enough is enough.
The quote about natural bodybuilders is not really the case though, especially if you look at what they really do, and why they do it. The reason they dont gain a massive amount of fat in the offseason, to further push size is not due to them not wanting to get larger, its that they cannot make those same drastic cuts that the chemically enhanced guys do, without losing a lot of muscle along the way.
The guys marty refers to in the interview are highly likely chemically enhanced. Ed coan, kirk, etc. , are all very vocal on their "supplements", and making a drastic cut with the assistance of drugs is much more doable without losing all the muscle tissue you gained during the hardcore bulk.
This topic has been beaten to death on tnation with the competitive natural bodybuilders. Guys that are "big" telling them they should eat more calories, then they tell said "guy" to cut down to competition weight without drugs and see how big he really is, or stays. Its the same reason the general rule of not "bulking" until 12% or so, I think that is lyles general rule of thumb, and it fits with what has worked for naturals over time.
-
I didn't say only gain 2 pounds a month in the beginning stages. I said you can gain 2 pounds of muscle. Muscle =/= LBM and Fat
And I think Natural Bodybuilders are a good example because Rippetoe acts like it is so easy to get the fat off after you bulk up. That's just not true. It's really hard to cut that much weight (especially when you gain 25-40 pounds of fat in your bulk like Rippetoe is suggesting)and not lose a lot of muscle.
I don't see why you think eating 5000 calories as opposed to 4000 calories will put on more muscle. It doesn't work that way. I am searching for the "studies" but anyone with any knowledge of protein synthesis and muscle hypertrophy should understand this. Your body doesn't "store" calories as muscle, it stores them as fat.
-
Steven, I agree that a lot of people on the internet do not eat enough to gain the strength and muscle mass they could attain with a higher calorie diet. That is going to hold true across averages, the problem is how much MORE calories, and not knowing when enough is enough.
The quote about natural bodybuilders is not really the case though, especially if you look at what they really do, and why they do it. The reason they dont gain a massive amount of fat in the offseason, to further push size is not due to them not wanting to get larger, its that they cannot make those same drastic cuts that the chemically enhanced guys do, without losing a lot of muscle along the way.
The guys marty refers to in the interview are highly likely chemically enhanced. Ed coan, kirk, etc. , are all very vocal on their "supplements", and making a drastic cut with the assistance of drugs is much more doable without losing all the muscle tissue you gained during the hardcore bulk.
This topic has been beaten to death on tnation with the competitive natural bodybuilders. Guys that are "big" telling them they should eat more calories, then they tell said "guy" to cut down to competition weight without drugs and see how big he really is, or stays. Its the same reason the general rule of not "bulking" until 12% or so, I think that is lyles general rule of thumb, and it fits with what has worked for naturals over time.
My argument is that natural bodybuilders do not maximize muscle mass for exactly the reasons you stated: keeping the muscle and getting bodybuilding lean is going to be difficult without drugs if you have to cut a lot in a limited amount of time. But that does not change the fact that bodybuilders cannot be used as a plausible argument for the maximum amount of muscle mass humans can add per a specific time frame. Because they have a lot of reasons not to do that.
I didn't say only gain 2 pounds a month in the beginning stages. I said you can gain 2 pounds of muscle. Muscle =/= LBM and Fat
And I think Natural Bodybuilders are a good example because Rippetoe acts like it is so easy to get the fat off after you bulk up. That's just not true. It's really hard to cut that much weight (especially when you gain 25-40 pounds of fat in your bulk like Rippetoe is suggesting)and not lose a lot of muscle.
I understand that muscle =/= LBM. I thought finding studies researching LBM increase vs. muscle might be more convenient. But as you wish. I am interested to see whatever you can find.
About Rip acting as if it was easy to lose fat after a bulk, I am sure he has had sufficient experience with trainees doing it. I am also rather sure he never trained natural bodybuilders considering his apparent despise for that sport. So we should not suggest that his advice is concerned with that subculture of athletes. But we should also not pretend as if he didn't have hundreds of guys getting strong and reasonably lean after that as well.
I don't see why you think eating 5000 calories as opposed to 4000 calories will put on more muscle. It doesn't work that way. I am searching for the "studies" but anyone with any knowledge of protein synthesis and muscle hypertrophy should understand this. Your body doesn't "store" calories as muscle, it stores them as fat.
I do not necessarily think that to be the case. I think this is a matter of inter-individual differences and I suggest that if you eat too little, than you will gain more muscle when you eat more. Whether 3000 kcal is too little or 4000 will be depending on the individual and there will obviously be a point where no more muscle is added.
Other than that I want to emphasize again that I am primarily talking about strength, as was the main topic for the majority of the interview. The phenomenology is that very often a higher calorie intake fixes peoples strength plateaus - with drugs or not. That is interesting, isn't it? Eating is apparently closely related to training success in the weight room. There are a number of mechanisms why that could be the case, one of them is that eating more than you think you need creates the best anabolic environment for maximizing muscle growth. Of course the amount your body does not need will not be deposited as muscle, but rather as body-fat. But when the goal is to maximize muscular growth it is better to err on the side of "too much" than "too little".
Now, there might be different mechanisms responsible as well. And I suppose that you think another important mechanism is at work here. Either that or you disagree with the observation that 5000 kcal over 4000 kcal for say a 200 lbs guy is going to get him stronger faster. If so, I would like to hear what you think the mechanism is.
-
Then while I was up I got hungry, so I woke my hoochie momma up and made her cook me a meal to get more calories. Yeah she bitched sometimes, but I told her if she ever wanted me to deliver the goods, she better get her ass otta bed. That lit a fire under her ass let me tell you. Hehe.
Lmao, that's a real man if I've ever seen one. What a hero.
-
I don't see why you think eating 5000 calories as opposed to 4000 calories will put on more muscle. It doesn't work that way. I am searching for the "studies" but anyone with any knowledge of protein synthesis and muscle hypertrophy should understand this. Your body doesn't "store" calories as muscle, it stores them as fat.
I dunno about studies but when you look at extremely obese people, they might weigh upward of 400 pounds. At that stage, you know while they are very fat, they're also carrying more LBM than the average person. To move 400 pounds from one point to another, takes muscles, and someone obese is actually carrying a fair bit of that stuff.
-
http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance/the_truth_about_bulking
-
I don't see why you think eating 5000 calories as opposed to 4000 calories will put on more muscle. It doesn't work that way. I am searching for the "studies" but anyone with any knowledge of protein synthesis and muscle hypertrophy should understand this. Your body doesn't "store" calories as muscle, it stores them as fat.
I dunno about studies but when you look at extremely obese people, they might weigh upward of 400 pounds. At that stage, you know while they are very fat, they're also carrying more LBM than the average person. To move 400 pounds from one point to another, takes muscles, and someone obese is actually carrying a fair bit of that stuff.
That happens overtime. Nobody goes from 150 pounds to 400 pounds in a few months, and if they did, they'd have issues walking.
-
Nah even 3wks wrks.
Thirteen adult females and two males were overfed a total of 79-159 MJ (19,000-38,000 kcal) during a 3-week period at the Clinical Research Center, Rochester. The average energy cost of the weight gain was 28 kJ (6.7 kcal)/g, and about half the gain consisted of lean body mass (LBM) as estimated by 40K counting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3479191
-
Nah even 3wks wrks.
Thirteen adult females and two males were overfed a total of 79-159 MJ (19,000-38,000 kcal) during a 3-week period at the Clinical Research Center, Rochester. The average energy cost of the weight gain was 28 kJ (6.7 kcal)/g, and about half the gain consisted of lean body mass (LBM) as estimated by 40K counting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3479191
38,000 excess calories is about 11lbs from my math. I'm sure most people can walk around with 11 extra pounds on and feel okay. Not only that, but TheSituation was talking about a 250lb gain, which is far greater. Obviously if the subjects in the study were to be fed enough to gain 250lbs, then less than half would be LBM. No one can put on over 200lbs and have half of it LBM, not even with illegal pharmaceuticals.
-
Nah even 3wks wrks.
Thirteen adult females and two males were overfed a total of 79-159 MJ (19,000-38,000 kcal) during a 3-week period at the Clinical Research Center, Rochester. The average energy cost of the weight gain was 28 kJ (6.7 kcal)/g, and about half the gain consisted of lean body mass (LBM) as estimated by 40K counting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3479191
Muscle =/= LBM. Try again. If I have a ridiculous amount of carbs and sodium and dense foods and drink a lot of water and never go the bathroom I can increase my LBM by 15 pounds in a day. Does that mean anything? No.
-
Nah even 3wks wrks.
Thirteen adult females and two males were overfed a total of 79-159 MJ (19,000-38,000 kcal) during a 3-week period at the Clinical Research Center, Rochester. The average energy cost of the weight gain was 28 kJ (6.7 kcal)/g, and about half the gain consisted of lean body mass (LBM) as estimated by 40K counting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3479191
Muscle =/= LBM. Try again. If I have a ridiculous amount of carbs and sodium and dense foods and drink a lot of water and never go the bathroom I can increase my LBM by 15 pounds in a day. Does that mean anything? No.
Well you should tell that to Off The Mark Rippetoe. He think the lean mass gains in his kid were, to quote, "muscular bodyweight". Are you suggesting he doesn't know what he's talking about?
-
Well you should tell that to Off The Mark Rippetoe. He think the lean mass gains in his kid were, to quote, "muscular bodyweight". Are you suggesting he doesn't know what he's talking about?
i should let jc answer this himself, but, YES.