# Weight gain debate



## cellaratt (Jul 16, 2008)

Ok lads...after reading a thread yesterday and seeing some response's to that thread, it sparked a question I have...What is a good amount of weight to gain and in what period of time...? According to TH&S you can only gain 1/4 of muscle in a week which I believed is backed with sceince. That makes sense and I know the fear of gaining fat with muscle for some is to much to handle but when someone gains 2 pounds in 6 weeks....well...that just doesn't seem like much to me...I gained 18 lbs in 5 weeks and I know it wasn't all muscle but being a ectomorph you didn't see it as fat gain either so...My question is open because i'm not really sure what I'm trying to say...Here's a link to the post that triggered me writing this post and maybe you can see what I getting at here...


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2008)

Weight gain is either water (most common in AAS users and often the bulk of gains) gylcogen being stored carbs in the liver and muscles which then bind more water into the body, fat which obviously we dont want and finally the hardest to gain muscle.

I do believe you are a natural trainer thus what i would do is find out your actual weight( i like to do a full colon cleanse once every few months just to clear out the entire system) i then up my intake of digestive enzymes.

From there just look at improvements in how you look, take body fat caliper measurements all over your body because some times your head ****s with you and confuses what is actually happening.

Also weigh your self once every two weeks i would aim for no actual weight in particular as long as its moving upwards and you LOOK better you are succeeding.

My body will get stuck at a body weight but instead of spinning my wheels i usually lose water and fat and become more solid at that weight instead of increasing weight, in the past i have freaked out and tried eating more resulting in fat gains.

Strenght is a great way to check that you are improving as long as your getting a tiny bit stronger you are doing good.

Really dont worry about weight too much as it changes so much at least for some people, i literally fluctuate around 6lb with no problem (i always weigh after sleeping 10 hours and using the bathroom) just due to carb intake ext.

Bodybuilding is about looking good, being fat looks ****, it used to believe that top levels bbs had to bulk up but this is obviously not true look at guys like Darren Ball or Tom on this site and so on. So if they dont have to do it why in the world would a non competing guy have to or want to bulk up


----------



## manson (Jun 21, 2008)

Con said:


> So if they dont have to do it why in the world would a non competing guy have to or want to bulk up


without sounding argumentative, are you suggesting unless competing a BB guy/girl should not "bulk eat" ie say 500-1000 surplus cals or more and should look more at "lean bulking".

I ask this purely because I wish to gain on shoulders, thighs hard places for me to gain but I don't want to become jimmy 5 bellies 

Sometimes I feel the term bulking is taken out of context some use it to gain a sh1t load of weight others just enough to grow muscle, whilst granted you need a surplus in your diet it seems to be a fine line you need to walk.

That said I could be totally wrong  which is not often :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

I think cons point revolves around more:

"you dont need to get fat to add muscle"

I fall into this bracket in terms of my school of thought.

Depending on thyroid output, metabolism and body type some will add different proportions of each (muscle/fat) when looking to gain quality weight.

Im not even going to debate this as I will let someone else do it

*The Truth About Bulking*

Is bulking up to gain muscle a good idea?

by Christian Thibaudeau

Let's Get Fat!

To gain size you have to eat, right? I think we can all agree with that. If you're a natural trainee you won't be able to add a significant amount of muscle mass unless you're consuming enough calories and nutrients to support muscle growth. If you're not ingesting enough nutrients, your body won't be in an optimal muscle-building state. In fact, if you don't eat enough, chances are you might even lose muscle mass despite training hard.

So on the surface it looks like the good ol' advice about following the ''see food diet'' to grow bigger seems logical. The more you eat the more you grow, right?

Not so fast!

While it's true that if you aren't consuming enough nutrients your muscle growth will be impaired, it doesn't necessarily mean that the more you eat the more you grow. Actually, it is true: the more you eat the bigger you'll get. However, this doesn't mean that you'll become more muscular!

This brings me to one of my biggest pet peeves and what I believe to be one of the biggest mistakes a person can make when training to build an aesthetic and muscular physique: eating way too much junk to grow bigger and accepting a large body fat gain in hope of stimulating more muscle growth.

You see, when you're a natural trainee your body has a limited capacity to build muscle. The amount of muscle you can build is dependent on your body's capacity to synthesize new muscle tissue from the ingested protein. Your body's protein synthesis capacities are dependent on your natural Testosterone levels, your Testosterone to cortisol ratio, your insulin sensitivity, and your muscle fiber makeup, among other things.

You can eat any amount of food you want; you simply can't change your protein synthesis limit naturally. Eating more food than your body can use to build muscle will simply lead to more body fat being gained.

An Analogy

I like to use a construction worker analogy to explain this. Imagine that your muscles are like a house you're trying to build. The bricks used to build the house represent the amino acids (from the ingestion of protein) while the money you're paying the workers (so that they'll do the work) represents the carbs and fat you eat.

Finally, the workers represent the factors involved in the protein synthesis process (Testosterone mainly) and the truck bringing the bricks to the workers represent insulin (which plays a capital role in transporting the nutrients to the muscle cells).

If you don't give the workers enough bricks (protein) they won't be able to build the house as fast as they could. So in that regard, an insufficient protein intake will slow down muscle growth.

Similarly, if you don't pay your workers enough (low carbs or fat intake) they won't be as motivated to work hard. As a result, the house won't be built very rapidly. In fact, if you really cut the workers' pay, they might even get mad, go on strike, and start demolishing the house (catabolism due to an excessively low caloric intake). So in that regard, not consuming enough protein or calories to support muscle growth will lead to a slower rate of gains.

Now, what happens if you start to send more bricks (increase protein intake) to the workers? Well, they'll be able to build the house more rapidly because they aren't lacking in raw material. However, at some point, sending more and more bricks won't lead to a faster rate of construction because the workers can only perform so much work in any given amount of time. For example, if your crew can add 1000 bricks per day to the walls, giving them 2000 bricks per day will be useless: it exceeds their work capacity. So the excess bricks will go to waste (literally).

In the same regard, if you increase your workers' salary (increase caloric intake) chances are their motivation will also increase and as a result they'll build the house faster. However, just like with bricks, there comes a point where increasing the workers' salary won't have any effect on the house-building rate: the workers will reach their physical limit. Once this limit is reached you can increase their salary all you want; they won't be able to add bricks to the house any faster.

What I'm trying to say is you can't bully your body into building muscle by force-feeding it. Adding nutrients and calories will have a positive effect on muscle growth until you reach your saturation point. After that, any additional calories will be stored as body fat.

So while it's true the more you eat the bigger you'll get, the additional weight will be in the form of fat, not muscle tissue.

How Much Muscle Can We Really Build?

The origin of the problem lies in the belief that our bodies can build a lot of muscle fast. Simply put, the average trainee has unrealistic expectations when it comes to building muscle.

I can't state a precise number, but the average gym rat (especially the younger members of said group) believe that gaining twenty pounds of muscle in three months is ''normal." In fact, I've seen many young lifting aficionados complaining about only gaining ten pounds in two months of training! I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your body (if you aren't using growth-enhancing drugs) can't build that much muscle that fast... not even close.

Normally I don't have any problems with people who have high expectations. However, in that particular case, the belief that it's possible to grow that fast can often lead to erroneous dietary approaches or even drug use (both out of frustration from not gaining twenty pounds in two or three months of training). So I'm here to set things straight. Many of you won't like what I'm about to say, but it's the truth.

Under the best possible circumstances (perfect diet, training, supplementation, and recovery strategies) the average male body can manufacture between 0.25 and 0.5 pounds of dry muscle tissue per week. That is the amount your natural body chemistry will allow you to build. So we're talking about around one or two pounds per month. It may not sound like much, but that can add up to twelve to twenty pounds over one year of training.

Understand that it's possible to gain more weight without adding fat because when you increase your muscle size you also increase glycogen and water storage in those muscles. More muscle equals more glycogen.

A trained individual can store up to 40g of glycogen per 100g of muscle tissue. So if you're gaining ten pounds of new muscle (4545g) you'll also increase glycogen storage by around four pounds (1.8kg). So if you gain ten pounds of muscle, your scale gain will actually be closer to fourteen pounds (if you didn't gain any fat).

Chances are if you're gaining more than three pounds per month, you're gaining some fat.

Body Image As An Enemy

''But I gained fifteen pounds in three months and I didn't gain fat.''

This is something I hear often. If it's not possible to gain more than a few pounds of muscle per month (or around six pounds over a three month period) how come you see so many people claiming to have gained heaps of muscle without getting fatter?

It's most likely due to what I call the ''lean threshold.'' You see, there's a point (a certain body fat percentage) where you start to look lean (around 10% for most men). There's also a point where you start to look fat (around 18-20% for most men). Then in between you have a certain zone where you basically look the same; you aren't lean enough to look defined so you don't really have any muscle separation.

At that point, even if you gain a few pounds of fat, you won't visually see the difference. This is compounded by the fact that you're seeing yourself every day, so you might not notice the small changes in appearance. Most men won't be able to see a visual difference in muscularity between 13 and 16%. But if you're 200 pounds, going from 13 to 16% body fat can mean a six pound gain in fat!

So a guy could very well have gained six pounds of muscle, six to seven pounds of fat, and two pounds of glycogen and water over the three month period, and he'll actually believe that he gained fifteen pounds of solid muscle because he looks to be about the same body fat percentage.

Now, repeat that over a few training cycles and you have a guy who could end up with a gain of fifteen to twenty pounds in body fat! One day he'll wake up and find a fat bastard looking back at him in the mirror, then he'll need to diet down to look remotely decent! Which brings me to my next point...

Bulking Up Then Dieting Down: Good or Bad?

Traditionally, bodybuilding training and nutrition has been divided into bulking and cutting phases. Both phases use extreme approaches, although the strategy used is the opposite: when you're in a bulking phase the objective is to get big without really concerning yourself with fat gain.

During that phase you eat as much food as you can handle (some even recommend force-feeding yourself) and don't perform any cardio or physical activity that might slow down your weight gain. Success in that type of phase is normally measured by the increase in scale weight, without much regard to appearance.

The reasoning is that you'll be able to diet off the fat afterward. Then you start a cutting phase in which the objective is to shed as much fat as possible. To do this, calories are drastically restricted and cardio or other physical activity is increased to speed up the fat loss process.

During the bulking phase you gain a lot of weight and (supposedly) muscle, while during the cutting phase you starve off the fat and keep (again, supposedly) the muscle you gained. On paper it looks great. However, there are several problems with that approach:

Problem #1: As I mentioned earlier, you can't force your body to add more muscle simply by eating more. Once you reach a point where you're giving your body as many nutrients as it can use to build muscle (the limit rate permitted by its natural biological properties), simply adding more food won't lead to more muscle growth. Instead it'll lead to an increase in weight in the form of body fat.

Problem #2: For a natural trainee, it's virtually impossible to lose a significant amount of fat while gaining muscle. That's one thing you can be sure of: when you're cutting calories to lose fat, you won't add muscle. In fact, in most cases you'll lose some muscle in the process. So the time spent on shedding the fat you gained during your bulking season (an amount of fat that's much larger than most people believe) is a period of time where you won't be able to add muscle tissue.

Now, we know that your body can't build muscle faster than its biological properties will allow. Since your body can't be forced into adding muscle rapidly, the only way to add more muscle is to spend more time in a positive muscle-building state. When you're severely restricting calories you aren't in such a state.

So if you bulk for six months and cut for three months, three of those months won't be muscle-growth months. If you want to gain more muscle you have to avoid non-building months. If you don't gain a significant amount of fat while you're gaining muscle, you won't need to spend a lot of time dieting down, hence you'll have more muscle-growth months.

Since most people will add around 1.5 pounds of muscle per month under ideal circumstances, and you can't increase that amount by force-feeding yourself, which one of the following situations is better?

Situation A: Go on an all-out bulking phase, gain 25 pounds over a period of six months.

Around 5-10 of these pounds will be muscle (12 at the most) and the rest will be from glycogen storage (2-4 pounds) and fat (10-15 pounds). To shed the excess fat, you have to go on a severe diet. If you never cheat and are super strict, you can hope for one or two pounds of fat loss per week without losing muscle. So in the best case scenario, it'll take you anywhere from 6 to 12 weeks to lose the fat.

However, fat loss isn't linear. The body adapts to caloric restriction and ''falling off the wagon'' will happen to most. So in "real life," losing the gained fat (if you don't want to lose muscle) will actually require 12 to 20 weeks of dieting. So over a 9 to 11 month period you gained around seven pounds of muscle (if you didn't lose anything while dieting). That gives you an average of 0.6 to 0.75 pounds of muscle per month. Reported over a year, it comes up to a total of seven to nine pounds.

Situation B: Ingest a caloric excess, but just enough to give your body the required amount of nutrients for optimal muscle growth. You can still manage a gain of around 1.5 pounds of muscle per month, but the fat gain will be much lower.

So after the same initial six months, you also gained 5-10 pounds but only 3-5 pounds of fat. So you really have to diet only for around a month to lose what you gained. So you gain around seven pounds of muscle over a seven month period, or one pound per month for a total of around 12 pounds reported over 12 months.

Some observations regarding this example:

A) In situation B, you're actually gaining more muscle over a year even though you aren't gaining as much weight.

B) In situation A, you have to diet for 3-5 months out of the year to lose the gained fat, versus 4-6 weeks for situation B. Very few people like to eat a restricted diet. So having to diet for only one month versus 3-5 months is a big advantage if you ask me!

C) Since you don't have to diet as hard in situation B, the risk of muscle loss is much lower than in situation A. In fact, because of the possibility of losing a significant amount of muscle during the cutting phase, you could very well end up with no muscle gain after a year of bulking and then cutting.

Problem #3: Another problem with bulking up is fat cell hyperplasia. You can add size or volume to a structure either by making the existing components bigger (hypertrophy) or by increasing the number of components (hyperplasia). This holds true for fat cells.

Fat cells (adipocytes) are like little bags. The more fat you put in the bags, the bigger they get. However, the bags can only hold so much fat. But lucky for us (or not) our body is a fantastic storage machine built for survival. As a result, it can also increase fat storage by adding more fat cells. The more fat cells you have, the easier it is for your body to store fat. This is where the problem comes in.

When overeating for a significant period of time, your body increases its number of fat cells. While you can make the existing fat cells "smaller" by emptying their fat content (fat loss), it's impossible to remove fat cells without surgery.

So your body can add fat cells, but it can't remove them. This is a big problem: the more fat cells you have, the easier it is for your body to store fat. So by adding new fat cells to your body you're actually making it better at gaining body fat as well as worse at losing it! By following an all-out bulking approach, you can stimulate adipocyte hyperplasia, which will make it harder to lose fat and easier to gain it over time.

So to recap:

A) Bulking up won't lead to any more muscle growth than ingesting an ideal amount of nutrients. You can't force your body to grow muscle by feeding it more and more.

B) By bulking up you're actually reducing the amount of time per year where you can add muscle because you have to diet for a longer period of time to remove the gained fat.

C) Bulking up will, over time, improve your body's capacity to store fat and reduce its capacity to lose it.

Of course, some people don't care about having a good looking physique; all they want is to take up more space and look big in clothes. That's fine if that's what you want. And for these people, bulking up is okay since they don't care about being lean.

However, I cringe when I see these people recommending the same approach to an individual (often a young kid) who wants to look muscular and lean. That's just irresponsible.

So Why Do We Bulk Up?

If a true bulk is so bad, why is it recommended by so many people?

1. Because it's part of bodybuilding's tradition. Ever since the 60s, bodybuilders included bulking and cutting phases. However, even while bulking they wouldn't gain that much fat because the amount of junk food available was much lower than today.

Bodybuilders from the 60s and 70s relied on steak, whole milk, and eggs when bulking up. They ate a ton of it, but it was still good, nutrient-dense food. Nowadays, bodybuilders focus on fast food, pizza, donuts, pastries, etc. when bulking up. So while in both cases the amount of food consumed is large, the quality of the food was much different.

2. The "bulking then cutting" approach is mostly a bodybuilding thing. However, keep in mind that competitive bodybuilders, those who are truly competition-minded, only want to look their best for a certain period of time: they want to hit their peak at a big show. Getting into stage shape demands so many sacrifices for so long that it's only normal to allow yourself some culinary pleasures after a show.

However, the average trainee wants to look good all year long. What if you meet a girl while you're bulked up? "Not with the lights on, honey. I'm bulking."

The average gym rat also doesn't want or need to get into stage shape (2-4% body fat); being lean and defined is enough. For most men, we're talking about a body fat percentage of around 8%, which is attainable by everyone if proper efforts and strategies are used. And once you reach 8% body fat, it isn't all that painful to maintain that level, certainly not to a point where you become so deprived that you gotta go on a all-you-can-eat eating spree for three months out of the year!

3. Competitive bodybuilders who use the bulking-cutting approach use performance-enhancing drugs which change their body chemistry. (Shocker!) Anabolic substances such as steroids, insulin, IGF-1, and hGH can bypass the body's natural biological state.

Remember, I told you a natural athlete is limited in the amount of nutrients he can use to build muscle by his own body chemistry? Well, this doesn't apply to the drug-using bodybuilder. By artificially enhancing his body chemistry he can bypass his natural muscle growth limit. So in that regard, eating a ton of food will work for the enhanced athlete even though it doesn't for the natural one.

4. Performance-enhancing drugs can also drastically speed up the fat loss process. Substances like thyroid hormones, clenbuterol, DNP, hGH, etc. can make your body lose fat at a much faster rate. So enhanced bodybuilders can afford to gain 20-30 pounds of fat in the off-season because the fat-loss drugs will allow them to quickly lose it.

Plus, the use of steroids can prevent muscle loss while dieting, so it's possible to restrict calories even more (thus losing fat faster) without risking losing muscle mass - a luxury that a natural trainee doesn't have.

5. Many people use the bulking up excuse to justify eating a ton of crappy food. "I can eat this tub of ice cream and this pizza, I'm bulking!'' The fact is that most people don't have the discipline and determination to make the lifestyle changes necessary to build an aesthetic, lean, and muscular physique. But instead of saying that they're too weak-minded to drop the junk out of their diets, they decide to make it acceptable to eat a bad diet by using bulking-up as an excuse.

If these people had both a strong sense of self-discipline and a desire to "bulk up," they'd jack up their caloric intake but only eat bodybuilding-friendly food. However, since this would mean not eating ice cream, fast food, and cookies, not many people actually bulk up that way. This is yet another indication that bulking up, for most, is just an excuse to not eat properly.

The Illusion of "Big?"

Body fat can really be an odd thing. When someone carries a significant amount of muscle mass, adding a layer of fat can actually make him look much bigger when wearing clothes. That's because his muscle mass gives him a solid foundation, so the fat added over the muscle (up to a certain point) will make his body occupy more space while keeping a certain amount of shape, at least when wearing clothes.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, there's a certain range of fatness where the body doesn't look visually different when it comes to definition and muscularity. When going from 13 to 16% body fat, you'll basically look to be at the same degree of fatness. In fact, some people who store body fat evenly might even look just as lean at 18% as 13%. So if someone goes from 220 pounds at 13% to 230 pounds at 16%, he'll basically have the same amount of muscle and ten pounds more fat, but he'll actually look bigger and more muscular because his degree of leanness will appear to be the same (while he occupies more space.)

So we could say if you aren't lean, adding body fat, up to a point, will make you look more muscular even if you aren't gaining muscle mass. This can make people underestimate the amount of fat they carry and put them in a situation where, over time, they can accumulate a lot of excess fat.

Something like that happened to me when I was young. At 17 years of age I was 180 pounds with a 32'' waist and around 13-14% body fat. To play football I decided to gain size and went on the ''see food diet.'' I was consuming at least 10,000 calories per day (7200 of which where from weight gainer shakes). In six months I went up to 225 pounds.

I really believed it was all muscle. I was getting stronger and looked much bigger in clothes. My mother kept telling me that I was getting fat, but I thought it was because she was trying to discourage me from training. The sad thing is that my waist ballooned up to 40 inches, but I never really noticed because at the time my mother was buying my pants. They weren't tighter (because she was buying larger ones) so I felt like I was just as lean.

Long story short, when I saw pictures of myself shirtless I went into shock. I was fat! It took me a whole year to drop back down to a size 32. The sad thing is that when I got back down to that size, I was down to 172 pounds. I actually lost eight pounds of muscle! I basically wasted 18 months of my life trying to gain muscle.

On the other end, losing body fat, at first, will make you look and feel smaller and less muscular. As I said several times, there isn't much visual difference between 13 and 16%. So the first 6-10 pounds of fat you lose won't make you look more defined. You'll look the same (definition wise) but your clothes will be looser and you'll feel smaller because your muscles will be flat from a lack of glycogen. So you'll look and feel smaller without actually looking more defined. Not very encouraging!

In the past, I stopped several diets because of that fact. I'd diet for four weeks or so, feel small and look like crap, so I'd think ''the heck with it'' and go back to my bulking habits.

Let me tell you this: a diet won't make you look good until you drop down to at least 10% body fat. That's the point where you start to actually look bigger even though you're becoming smaller (because of the fat you're losing). As you go down to 8% or so, people will actually believe that you're gaining size as your weight goes down!

Simply put, when you aren't lean, adding some fat will make you look larger and losing just a bit of fat will make you look smaller. But past a certain point (10%), you'll look larger by the day as you're losing fat. It's all an illusion.

Here are some examples of this. First is Sebastien Cossette (a.k.a. Da Freak), a young bodybuilder I trained for his first competition. In the ''before'' pics he actually weighs more than in the ''after'' pictures (around 210 vs. 190-195) yet he looks much bigger and more impressive in the latter.

The second example is Christiane Lamy (my girlfriend), who's a natural female bodybuilder as well as a trainer and nutritionist. In the ''before'' pics she's around ten pounds heavier than in the ''after'' pics; however, I think it's easy to see in which ones she's the most impressive!

Finally, two last examples: Allen Cress and Mike Hanley who have been dieting and training hard. They show how definition can make you look much bigger, yet in both cases they were around 20 pounds heavier in the "before" pics. Here's Alan:

And here's Mike:

Don't Bulk!

There are several good reasons not to bulk up, at least not in the traditional manner. Here are a few:

1. Very few people will ever set foot on a bodybuilding stage. Those who have no aspiration to compete train mostly to look good. Is looking good two months out of the year what you're really after? Of course not. Most want to look good all year long!

I don't mean be stage-ready 365 days a year, but being at a body fat percentage where you look lean and muscular. In my opinion, someone who's training for aesthetic purposes should never go above 10% body fat. Trust me, 10% is actually not that lean! But it's a point where muscle definition and muscularity are sufficient to make you look very good. It also leaves you within four weeks or so of being in superb, super-lean condition.

So what if you're at 13% body fat and don't have that much muscle? Should you bulk up? No! You should go down to 10% then gradually increase your nutritional intake until you reach a point where you're gaining 1.5 to 2 pounds per month. This will allow you to gain muscle at your optimal rate while staying at 10%.

2. The leaner you are, the better your body becomes at nutrient partitioning. This means that lean individuals are more effective at storing the ingested nutrients in the muscle (as muscle tissue or glycogen) or in the liver (glycogen), and less effective at storing them as body fat. Simply put, leaner individuals can eat more nutrients without gaining fat.

3. The fatter you let yourself become, the more fat cells you're adding to your body. As we saw earlier, this will make it easier to gain fat and harder to lose it in the future, not to mention that the fatter you are, the less insulin sensitive you become. This is one of the reasons why fatter individuals are more effective at storing nutrients in the form of body fat than their leaner counterparts.

4. Building a good looking body isn't something that happens overnight. Many people have this distorted idea that within a year of training it's possible to look like a competitive bodybuilder. Not the case!

Building a great body is a 24 hour a day job. It isn't limited to the hour you spend at the gym; it's about the lifestyle. By eating good all year long, you aren't using a fad approach but rather changing your habits. It's much easier to lose fat when you're already used to eating well 90% of the time.

So Should I Eat Like a Bird?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you should eat a low calorie diet year 'round. I'm not against eating large amounts of food. In fact, to build muscle you must ingest more calories than you expend every day. However, the message is to use the correct amount of food to allow your body to build muscle at an optimum rate. You shouldn't stuff yourself trying to force-feed muscle onto your body.

The following table gives you an estimate of what your caloric intake should be set at depending on your lean body weight (total body weight minus fat weight. For example, someone who's 210 at 12% body fat has a fat mass of 25 pounds and a lean mass of 185 pounds.)

Caloric intake relative to lean body weight to support optimal growth (considering a normal activity level)

Lean Body Weight (total weight - fat weight)

Caloric Intake to Support Optimal Growth

120lbs

2455kcals

130lbs

2634kcals

140lbs

2813kcals

150lbs

3037kcals

160lbs

3260kcals

170lbs

3440kcals

180lbs

3663kcals

190lbs

3885kcals

200lbs

4064kcals

210lbs

4244kcals

220lbs

4467kcals

230lbs

4646kcals

240lbs

4868kcals

250lbs

5091kcals

260lbs

5270kcals

270lbs

5494kcals

This caloric intake should allow you to gain around two to three pounds per month. If you aren't gaining that amount, slowly increase your caloric intake until you reach that rate of growth (add 250kcals at a time).

If you're gaining more than three pounds per month, you might be adding fat. If you're gaining a lot more than three pounds (like 5-7 per month), reduce the caloric intake.

Take Home Messages

• Don't get fat. In my opinion, no man needs to be above 10% body fat, and getting there isn't that hard. It can take time if you carry a lot of fat, but every man can get there and maintain this level.

• You can't bully your body into adding more muscle simply by overeating.

• You can limit your rate of gain by not ingesting enough nutrients. So adding good food if you're lacking in that department will help you gain muscle faster, but past a certain point, continuing to jack up calories will only make you fatter.

• Have realistic expectations. You won't gain 20 pounds of muscle in three months, not even in six months. Gaining 1.5 to 2 pounds of muscle per month is the most you can expect. And for most, gaining more than ten pounds of solid muscle per year (once they're past the beginner stage) will be very rare. However, gain 5-7 pounds per year for ten years straight and you'll be one huge beast!

• Being lean makes it easier to stay lean and to gain muscle through better nutrient partitioning. Getting fatter makes it easier to gain more fat and harder to lose it.

• Trying to gain muscle mass should never be a justification for eating crap. If you want to eat a junk diet, at least have the decency to admit it's because you like your food too much to give it up. Don't try to pass it off as a "bulking diet." Pizzas, Big Macs, and donuts don't have higher anabolic properties than clean food!

Conclusion

Somebody had to say it and it was me. I'm tired of seeing young kids with good potential, who are lean and have nice shapes to start with, ruin their bodies by following the bulking advice from self-proclaimed Internet "gurus" who advise them to eat as much food as they can, even junk food if it can help them jack up their calories. All this will accomplish is helping them add heaps of fat to their lean bodies.

I agree that a lot of young lifters don't eat enough to support maximum muscle growth, but eating junk or super-excessive calories isn't the way to go. The basic message is good: if you aren't gaining muscle, you're probably not eating enough. However, that doesn't mean you should eat too much and it doesn't mean you should eat crap!

Think about it.

© 1998 - 2006 Testosterone, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

if you want the picture version

http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1268956&cr=


----------



## cellaratt (Jul 16, 2008)

I have given to much rep...but yours is coming...Thanks...


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

just to add my 2 cents

Now the reason most people get fat:

1 they cannot be patient

2 there is a point where you look no different in terms of body fat so they think they are adding muscle exclusively (or as a very high %) yet when they cut they realise its not the case

3 poor nutrient choice and a lack of understanding of their metabolism, requirements and how to take advantage of nutrient partitioning, cardio, cortisol control, estrogen control and nutrient timing

4 so few factor in alcohol and its effects

5 a calorie is not a calorie

6 they do not train correctly

7 they do not use steroids or PCT periods correctly

they are a few of many thoughts


----------



## manson (Jun 21, 2008)

That is a sh1t hot article there LS mate:thumb:

I didn't mean to come across ****y in my reply to cons post hope it didn't appear that way, it just confused me... yup even more than normal lol But after reading that article cons point makes sense.


----------



## manson (Jun 21, 2008)

Lost Soul said:


> just to add my 2 cents
> 
> Now the reason most people get fat:
> 
> ...


I have heard of this hobby/way of life etc etc being a science, fcuk me I didn't realize just how much of a science it actually is.... oh god more reading!


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Con is sound, he will know that 

RE the science, it doesnt have to be but application must match aspiration

I find it strange when kids come on board and claim they are not gaining yet dont want to do anything about it that takes reading or time 

Example

http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/getting-started/36414-chest-big-arms-not-bugging-me-what-do.html#post485859


----------



## manson (Jun 21, 2008)

Lost Soul said:


> I find it strange when kids come on board and claim they are not gaining yet dont want to do anything about it that takes reading or time


A bit like the " I am going on holiday in 3 months, I just want to take ASS as its quicker" mentality ?


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

I always get my ass when on holiday rather than taking it with me though mate, no point going to Rome and trying to find a fish and chip shop now is there?

But i agree with your sentiment


----------



## recc (Apr 27, 2008)

great post a good read apart from the fact it has destroyed my goals! (which I now realise are unrealistic)


----------



## manson (Jun 21, 2008)

recc said:


> great post a good read apart from the fact it has destroyed my goals! (which I now realise are unrealistic)


Goals should be 3 fold IMO

1 short term "I want to be able to press 10-20kg extra by xmas" type

2 Long term "i want 20 inch arms" type

3 Dream term " I am going to be the next Dorian" type.

Remember dreams can come true but only for a select few, make your short term goals more realistic, and remember everything takes time there are no quick fixes.

all the best


----------



## Tall (Aug 14, 2007)

I wet myself when I read that article. I had a debate with CT on BB.com where he claimed 20lbs of muscle in 6 weeks is possible.

LMFAO.

Cellar - if you hadn't guessed, some of the 18lbs will be fat - but you may look leaner due to increased amounts of muscle AND increased amounts of intracellular water in the muscles which make the muscles look bigger.


----------



## cellaratt (Jul 16, 2008)

TH&S said:


> I wet myself when I read that article. I had a debate with CT on BB.com where he claimed 20lbs of muscle in 6 weeks is possible.
> 
> LMFAO.
> 
> Cellar - if you hadn't guessed, some of the 18lbs will be fat - but you may look leaner due to increased amounts of muscle AND increased amounts of intracellular water in the muscles which make the muscles look bigger.


That's fine by me...I'm pretty sure I've lost all that since the move but I have a plan in place that should have me in the gym in the next 2 weeks and I will have a brand new kitchen in which to prepair my meals in, so with all luck I shall reinstate my journal...if you would be kind enough to check in on me from time to time, it would be much appreiciated...Cheers


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

TH&S said:


> I wet myself when I read that article. I had a debate with CT on BB.com where he claimed 20lbs of muscle in 6 weeks is possible.
> 
> LMFAO.
> 
> Cellar - if you hadn't guessed, some of the 18lbs will be fat - but you may look leaner due to increased amounts of muscle AND increased amounts of intracellular water in the muscles which make the muscles look bigger.


Its a shame he often seels out for the good of his marketing ploys. The above though holds some very valid points


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i think you should have a goal but the goal to be more around how you want to look rather than a number of how much weight you want to gain.

i have found that by going down the road of clean bulking by weighing and knowing what you are eating instead of the old route of eat what ever you can the results are better leaner muscle rather than fat and water, yes it is slower but you should go by the look rather than the weight you are....

the article LS posted is great but you cannot follow it unless you know what you eat and the values you take in and to do this you need to make the extra effort to weigh your foods, as mentioned in this section of the post



> This caloric intake should allow you to gain around two to three pounds per month. If you aren't gaining that amount, slowly increase your caloric intake until you reach that rate of growth (add 250kcals at a time).
> 
> If you're gaining more than three pounds per month, you might be adding fat. If you're gaining a lot more than three pounds (like 5-7 per month), reduce the caloric intake.


if you do not weigh your foods how do you know where to raise the calories or even how much is 250cals....?? i am sure they worked it out in the 50's and 60's though LS


----------



## nathanlowe (Jan 8, 2008)

I dont count my food or calories etc, dont think i need to at my age and level of bodybuilding.


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

i think once your body reaches a certain level of development, its sometimes just a task to "maintain" your lean weight, let alone put some on even with all diet\training\aas factors in place


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

nathanlowe said:


> I dont count my food or calories etc, dont think i need to at my age and level of bodybuilding.


if you are gaining and reaching your goals then i would agree but if you are not then how do you know what to change? or would you just eat bigger portions?


----------



## nathanlowe (Jan 8, 2008)

Well just in the middle of switching routines as my goals have changed. If i dont gain size in x amount of months, then i will look into it. But if i do gain then imo no need to look that far into it. Only when i need to.

I think im eating as much protein in grams as my bodyweight.


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> if you are gaining and reaching your goals then i would agree but if you are not then how do you know what to change? or would you just eat bigger portions?


this is a serious question pscarb, in case you think im taking the pee.

For someone like me who eats pretty well for an advanced lifter, ie 6 high protein meals a day, but anything weekends, takes vits and a few supps etc, so my diet is prob 70% what it should be, i dont have anywhere near knowledge of nutrition that you do

Taking a gram plus of aas a week plus gh and slin, how much difference do you think it would make if i got my diet spot on for a few months and stopped all the bad stuff as it were...

As im taking PEDs do you think iwould even notice the difference??


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> if you do not weigh your foods how do you know where to raise the calories or even how much is 250cals....?? i am sure they worked it out in the 50's and 60's though LS





Pscarb said:


> if you are gaining and reaching your goals then i would agree but if you are not then how do you know what to change? or would you just eat bigger portions?


To quote a great man 



Pscarb said:


> at the end of the day if it works who cares how it works? we can all go into details of the specifics and to be honest this sometimes clouds the big picture and that is if what you are using and doing PWO is working in the way of recovery and results stick with it....


http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/protein/36489-best-pwo-shake-5.html#post489108


----------



## thestudbeast (Jul 20, 2007)

jw007 said:


> this is a serious question pscarb, in case you think im taking the pee.
> 
> For someone like me who eats pretty well for an advanced lifter, ie 6 high protein meals a day, but anything weekends, takes vits and a few supps etc, so my diet is prob 70% what it should be, i dont have anywhere near knowledge of nutrition that you do
> 
> ...


Try it and tell us


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

thestudbeast said:


> Try it and tell us


gotta be worth it 1st, plus not that dedicated at mo lol

Actually would be interested in anyone elses thoughts also.

One reason would like to know is to see how much more i would have progressed if i had had diet spot on for years and not been slack at times


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

LS you are great at mis quoting people, my comment their was after you turned a perfect debate into something far to technical about PWO shakes.

We are talking here about detailing what you eat on a daily basis this is not over complicating things this is basic stuff as i have said many times if you are not acheiving your goals and not moving forward how do you change the amounts you eat if you do not know what you are eating? do you just add more oats and chicken? how do you know you are eating enough in the 2 main meals of the day (breakfast/PWO) if you have no clue what you are eating? or is it your suggestion to guess and hope for the best? just as they did in the 50's and 60's


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

jw007 said:


> this is a serious question pscarb, in case you think im taking the pee.
> 
> For someone like me who eats pretty well for an advanced lifter, ie 6 high protein meals a day, but anything weekends, takes vits and a few supps etc, so my diet is prob 70% what it should be, i dont have anywhere near knowledge of nutrition that you do
> 
> ...


i do not think your taking the p1ss mate, i know you ask pertanent questions....

I do believe that you would see a difference mate not just in weight but in quality.

do not get me wrong i am not one to preach as i have done the all you can see diet but found i do not eat as much as i thought i was doing which in turn hindered my progress all you have to do is look at me onstage pre-2004....

i know everything i eat Sun - Fri whilst dieting and eat wehat i want on a sat when off season i know what i am eating Mon-Fri then anything i want on the weekends.....

all i am saying is the benefit to knowing what you are eating is more than many will admit and just eating a handfull of this or a portion of that is not as efficient as some might think.

i would put my way up against the willy nilly approach others are suggesting anyday it has certainly worked for Stuart Core this past year and it will work for BrittBB in the next few yrs.....

many do not do this or dismiss it because they cannot be bothered which is fine if you are seeing results or are happy with your progress but if you are not then why not give it a go as i said earlier you would not just bang in a portion of test in your ass would you?


----------



## jw007 (Apr 12, 2007)

Pscarb said:


> i do not think your taking the p1ss mate, i know you ask pertanent questions....
> 
> I do believe that you would see a difference mate not just in weight but in quality.
> 
> ...


cheers for reply:thumb:


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Pscarb said:


> LS you are great at mis quoting people, my comment their was after you turned a perfect debate into something far to technical about PWO shakes.
> 
> We are talking here about detailing what you eat on a daily basis this is not over complicating things this is basic stuff as i have said many times if you are not acheiving your goals and not moving forward how do you change the amounts you eat if you do not know what you are eating? do you just add more oats and chicken? how do you know you are eating enough in the 2 main meals of the day (breakfast/PWO) if you have no clue what you are eating? or is it your suggestion to guess and hope for the best? just as they did in the 50's and 60's


My point being

If you have know good foods, you know if you are gaining or losing weight. If its the former and you want it to be the latter then reduce protion size. For most this is adequate. Dont think I have measured anything for ages yet enjoying best gains I have ever had and the freedom to enjoy more meals is there.

IMO as long as you have an appreciation of good food and you see changes in your body you can go from there.

Top top end stuff no doubt as comp prep is significantly different but for the lay folk of the training world simple enjoyment of 'known quality foods' and the mirror, energy levels and perfromance should suffice

I believe the reason so many cant diet or forumalte them is they go too far and get themselves in a pickle and fcuk it off and become slaves to the numbers


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Lost Soul said:


> Dont think I have measured anything for ages yet enjoying best gains I have ever had and the freedom to enjoy more meals is there.


this is good and echoes what i have said many times if it aint broke dont try to fix it.



Lost Soul said:


> IMO as long as you have an appreciation of good food and you see changes in your body you can go from there.


yes again i agree but many do not have this understanding and many guys undereat and do not make the progress.



Lost Soul said:


> I believe the reason so many cant diet or forumalte them is they go too far and get themselves in a pickle and fcuk it off and become slaves to the numbers


there is no need to become a slave to the numbers you are making this sound like a really difficult thing to do when it is not it takes no time what so ever to work out what you need per day....


----------



## nathanlowe (Jan 8, 2008)

Im going to note down what i eat on a fullday.

Protein, Carbs, Fats etc.


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

Paul

Dont get me wrong I believe for those who make it past the initial hurdles of throwing out marketing hype and BS in magazines then knowing whats going in and out is key to getting from grade A to grade A+

The initial stages IMO should be sans numbers as its yet another thing to baffle kids with and then they end up working out they 'need' 325.6g of protein in a day...yet have missed the basics.

I also feel some flexibility must come in to ensure a stable relationship with food remains

the amiunt of times i read "Sh1t going to my nans this weekend...what shall i eat and how much?"

This IMo has taken the fun out of family outings and simply leads to distress.

If you are looking shyte work out what foods do...so

600 calorie meal from fat carbs and pro (isocaloric) cane be:

icecream, lard and salted peanuts

or

yams, brocolli, onions, spinach and salmon

same macros, some calories just a better appreciation of good foods.

If your body is not reacting to this then start to alter the portion size and allow for time IMO


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

nathanlowe said:


> Im going to note down what i eat on a fullday.
> 
> Protein, Carbs, Fats etc.


I strongly suggest you dont especially with your 'eye for detail and liking for changing protocols'


----------



## nathanlowe (Jan 8, 2008)

Lost Soul said:


> I strongly suggest you dont especially with your 'eye for detail and liking for changing protocols'


Ok i wont then haha.

Im actually sticking with this improved diet so its a good idea not to post details as i will probably be told to change things.


----------



## Aftershock (Jan 28, 2004)

Pscarb said:


> the article LS posted is great but you cannot follow it unless you know what you eat and the values you take in and to do this you need to make the extra effort to weigh your foods, as mentioned in this section of the post
> 
> if you do not weigh your foods how do you know where to raise the calories or even how much is 250cals....?? i am sure they worked it out in the 50's and 60's though LS


That is so true.

Its more effort but leaves nothing to chance. In fact after a while it becomes second nature.

Little pocket scales in the kitchen/work is all it takes.

Personally I plan my diet and eat pretty much the same thing each training and rest day so know what I'm eating each day in advance. This makes things so much easier. I may swap out a protein/carb source and replace it with another for variety but thats about it.

Now if you are the type of person who wonders what you are having for your next meal this type of approach is going to be impossible, and counting calories/macros becomes a massive job.

The only thing I would say is know when to deviate from the plan.

If you think im going to sit there while my body is screaming out for food your wrong.

The difference is because of the underlying structure I know I haven't filled up on junk and empty calories during the day, so if my body is still asking for more food then its not going to store them as fat.

If this happens to often though its time to set a new base level for daily intake.


----------



## nathanlowe (Jan 8, 2008)

Aftershock said:


> That is so true.
> 
> Its more effort but leaves nothing to chance. In fact after a while it becomes second nature.
> 
> ...


Good post.

I have the same thing monday to friday - all exept tea as it will be a variety of meat sources.


----------



## bogman (Jun 25, 2007)

Lost Soul - this article is very beneficial - particularly with the pics of different bf levels. I have to confess I could have done with reading it a couple of years ago - after my big initial gains when I started doing weights seriously and properly, I continued to eat lots to bulk. And I expected to keep gaining at the same rate! Although the food was relatively healthy, I was eating too much. Just like the guy in the story, my wife kept telling me I was getting a bit fat, but I kept telling her it was nonsense, I was putting on muscle (all seems quite obvious in hindsight!). My waist size went from about 33 inches to 38 inches before it finally occurred to me I was getting fat (I think I was probably close to 20% bf at that point - before that I was probably about 10% as I was a cardio-junkie).

I can see the sense in trying to keep the fat gained as low as possible and to avoid or minimize cutting cycles for the average trainee. However, I'm not sure under 10% is for everyone? Although you'll look better with your shirt off - lets be honest - in the UK that's only when we go on our Summer hols to Spain! The rest of the time we are wearing a shirt - so if you're about 15% bf and that extra 5% bf makes you look bigger then personally I'd settle for that? It should also be a bit easier to maintain for most people than <10%?


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

BF is not just about aesthetics, its about health and muscle gaining efficiency

easy to look big in a top

easy to look ripped out of one

takes a dedicated many with a brain to be both


----------



## bogman (Jun 25, 2007)

A cryptic response as always! 

Isn't 15% is a perfectly healthy level of body fat to maintain?


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

bogman said:


> A cryptic response as always!


If people dont think they will never know how to process information that applies to them and end up following one size fits all apporaches 



> Isn't 15% is a perfectly healthy level of body fat to maintain


Based on? Government suggestions in relation to BMI? optimum efficiency in terms of test levels? inuslation? lubing of joints? cardiac effciciency?

IMO 15% is too high for me to be close to homeostatis, my body feels best at 10-12%, worst at 5% and equally as bad at 20% plus


----------



## Guest (Jul 19, 2008)

bogman said:


> A cryptic response as always!
> 
> Isn't 15% is a perfectly healthy level of body fat to maintain?


 15% is very different depending how you measure it.

15% fat is very different between 15% fat and all extra water.

My best example is every time i have had my skin fold test done(by bodybuilder/trainers who should be able to do it properly) it has never been over 10% yet when i diet i can easly drop 10% of my body weight and be far from fat free (and no i am not just losing a ton of muscle:whistling.


----------



## bogman (Jun 25, 2007)

Lost Soul said:


> If people dont think they will never know how to process information that applies to them and end up following one size fits all apporaches


Indeed, but some people manage to achieve the same in a less enigmatic way 



Lost Soul said:


> Based on? Government suggestions in relation to BMI? optimum efficiency in terms of test levels? inuslation? lubing of joints? cardiac effciciency?
> 
> IMO 15% is too high for me to be close to homeostatis, my body feels best at 10-12%, worst at 5% and equally as bad at 20% plus


I think most GP's and medical studies (most of which suggest you significantly increase your health risks as you get around 25% and above)? But as you suggest, there's probably a large element of personal preference as long as you're keeping within a healthy range.

P.S. I presume you mean homeostasis rather than homeostatis?


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

bogman said:


> Indeed, but some people manage to achieve the same in a less enigmatic way


Thats their choice, the onus IMO is on the learner to get thinking rather than the erudite to give one example that is to be taken as gospel and applied blindly...... hence why those who search win, those who don't lose



> I think most GP's and medical studies (most of which suggest you significantly increase your health risks as you get around 25% and above)? But as you suggest, there's probably a large element of personal preference as long as you're keeping within a healthy range.


Again, listen to your GP and you will be on 60g of protein per day and avoiding saturated fats and as soon as your BMI hits 28-30 you must lose weight.

With regards bodyfat on the flip if you go below 6/7/8% you are again seen as a risk bracket.



> P.S. I presume you mean homeostasis rather than homeostatis


If you want to pull me up on a spelling error I feel for you especially when you have limited knowlegde in an area you are looking for help in. Why resort to the most minor things to point out?.... almost like a 17 year old pulling up at the lights in a vauxhall nova, laughing his ar5e off at the M3 driver next to him saying "hhahahahahaha your missing a dust cap off your tyre valve...hahhahaha your missing a dust cap"

A previous post points the area of development in terms of knowledge



bogman said:


> I've been doing weights for about 3 years. Have only been reading this board for about a year, and really sharpened my diet & routine since then.
> 
> However, I'm still struggling to gain muscle. I've been able to increase my lifts quite a bit - for example, I can now deadlift twice my bodyweight without aids (I know that's not going to win any prizes, but I struggled to lift half my weight a couple of years ago). In particular, I've found Big's two phase programme has really helped me make further gains in my lifts.
> 
> ...


So, if you want to go down that route of pulling people up on minor things we can start on the above and move on to the major issues?


----------



## bogman (Jun 25, 2007)

Lost Soul said:


> If you want to pull me up on a spelling error I feel for you especially when you have limited knowlegde in an area you are looking for help in. Why resort to the most minor things to point out?.... almost like a 17 year old pulling up at the lights in a vauxhall nova, laughing his ar5e off at the M3 driver next to him saying "hhahahahahaha your missing a dust cap off your tyre valve...hahhahaha your missing a dust cap"
> 
> A previous post points the area of development in terms of knowledge
> 
> So, if you want to go down that route of pulling people up on minor things we can start on the above and move on to the major issues?


Don't worry - just pulling your leg. I'm the first to admit I have a lot to learn on BB'ing - virtually any of my posts on this site will show this!

A final thought:

"Knowledge is a process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplification." Albert Einstein.


----------



## bogman (Jun 25, 2007)

Con said:


> 15% is very different depending how you measure it.
> 
> 15% fat is very different between 15% fat and all extra water.
> 
> My best example is every time i have had my skin fold test done(by bodybuilder/trainers who should be able to do it properly) it has never been over 10% yet when i diet i can easly drop 10% of my body weight and be far from fat free (and no i am not just losing a ton of muscle:whistling.


Con - that's interesting. Do you think that water is from an AAS cycle? or just from normal training/diet?

I don't have access to skin fold tests, so try to judge by a body fat scales (I know they're not the most accurate, but helps me at least see trends) and measuring my waist. Both of these are obviously far from perfect! But sounds like even the skin fold tests aren't fool proof. I have also read that you really need an expert to make sure they're taking the measurements in the right place?


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

bogman said:


> Don't worry - just pulling your leg. I'm the first to admit I have a lot to learn on BB'ing - virtually any of my posts on this site will show this!
> 
> A final thought:
> 
> "Knowledge is a process of piling up facts; wisdom lies in their simplification." Albert Einstein.


Thats cool mate 

I cannot spell for sh1t, I don't plan on learning at my age either :laugh:

I like the thought

"Knowledge is only as powerful as the brain that applies it to the task in hand"

I may even copyright that and stand amongst Einstein and other greats with that one


----------



## cellaratt (Jul 16, 2008)

Lost Soul said:


> I like the thought
> 
> "Knowledge is only as powerful as the brain that applies it to the task in hand"
> 
> I may even copyright that and stand amongst Einstein and other greats with that one


I like the thought...

" Man who goes to bed with itchy butt, wakes up with smelly finger..."


----------



## Lost Soul (Apr 5, 2008)

cellaratt said:


> I like the thought...
> 
> " Man who goes to bed with itchy butt, wakes up with smelly finger..."


...Or RuPaul bringing him coffee first thing with a smile on his/her face

One of the two


----------



## Guest (Jul 20, 2008)

bogman said:


> Con - that's interesting. Do you think that water is from an AAS cycle? or just from normal training/diet?


 Certaintly being on cycle makes you hold a lot of water but also sodium intake through food, creatine ext will all make you hold more water.

Try taking your normal calories and exchanging it all for white fish green veg and brown rice and you will get a decrease in body weight and look leaner due to losing some of this "crap" weight but your actual body fat stores will stay the same.


----------



## bogman (Jun 25, 2007)

Con said:


> Certaintly being on cycle makes you hold a lot of water but also sodium intake through food, creatine ext will all make you hold more water.
> 
> Try taking your normal calories and exchanging it all for white fish green veg and brown rice and you will get a decrease in body weight and look leaner due to losing some of this "crap" weight but your actual body fat stores will stay the same.


Interesting. Like the new avatar - I didn't think it was possible but you look bigger than the cartoon in the old one!


----------

