# Eat big, get big - where's the limit?



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Here's one before I go to sleep.

Let's say we have joe blogs. His maintenance cals are 2,500.

Scenario A.

He eats 1,000 extra cals over maintenance day in day out.

Scenario B.

He eats 3,000 cals over maintenance day in day out.

In both scenarios his macros are exactly the same. His training is exactly the same. Everything is the same except he physically eats more.

Obviously he will gain more weight in scenario B, but will more of it be muscle?

Simply put, how do you work out that with X training routine, how many cals are actually required before you hit a ceiling for that particular routine?

Would it be sensible to say that if at 3,000 extra cals, if not all it is used up so to speak with the routine, it will turn to fat and the only way to gain more would be to train more?


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

If macros are the same, how are the calories different? Doesn't make sense.

If you ate 3000 calories over maintenance you would get fat quickly.

To build 10lbs of lean muscle per year, it takes 16 calories per day over maintenance (that's 4 grams of protein) OBVIOUSLY getting only 16 calories from protein over what you need is next to impossible. You literally only need to target a couple hundred calories over what you expend.

I really don't get this bulking malarky, you knowingly eat way too many calories and know you will put on more fat than you would like... where's the logic? Extra fat doesn't help you lift heavier.


----------



## reza85 (Jan 11, 2009)

F.M.J said:


> If macros are the same, how are the calories different? Doesn't make sense.
> 
> If you ate 3000 calories over maintenance you would get fat quickly.
> 
> ...


True but is not so simple when you add steroids in that equation


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

reza85 said:


> True but is not so simple when you add steroids in that equation


Well steroids increase the rate of protein synthesis, so your body can deal with more calories. But still there would be a point where there are too many calories, even while taking steroids.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> Extra fat doesn't help you lift heavier.


it does the more you weigh the more you are going to be able to lift usually. why do you think powerlifters are a bit tubby.


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Let's not get hung up on exact figures - just the principle.

When I say macros are hypothetically the same I mean same % of carbs/pro/fat.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

kingdale said:


> it does the more you weigh the more you are going to be able to lift usually. why do you think powerlifters are a bit tubby.


Tell me how dead weight helps you push heavier. Please. Enlighten me. It is the MUSCLE that works to push weight, fat doesn't actively move weight.

There was a young lad in a powerlifting gym I used to train in, he was under 70kg and skinny. He deadlifted over 200kg.

Most powerlifters are tubby because to eat thousands of calories is some kind of bro science, and mostly, powerlifters aren't there for aesthetics so can eat what they want and that's usually a lot.


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Reason this came about was that program on Bbc where these dudes were told to eat something like 6000 cals or something.

Got me thinking, these bb'ers that eat crazy cals every day but are massive - does the eating allow them to train more (everyday) and still make progress without overtraining and going catabolic?


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> Tell me how dead weight helps you push heavier. Please. Enlighten me. It is the MUSCLE that works to push weight, fat doesn't actively move weight.
> 
> There was a young lad in a powerlifting gym I used to train in, he was under 70kg and skinny. He deadlifted over 200kg.
> 
> Most powerlifters are tubby because to eat thousands of calories is some kind of bro science, and mostly, powerlifters aren't there for aesthetics so can eat what they want and that's usually a lot.


power lifters are training purely to get the best strength generally having a bit of fat does help there are a few that dont carry much fat but that isnt the usual. Who is going to lift more two identical people apart from one is carrying an extra stone of fat? the guy with fat will lift more. Just because one skinny guy deadlifted alot doesnt mean being skinny is an advantage at all. anyway this isnt actually anything to do with the thread.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

hongman said:


> Reason this came about was that program on Bbc where these dudes were told to eat something like 6000 cals or something.
> 
> Got me thinking, these bb'ers that eat crazy cals every day but are massive - does the eating allow them to train more (everyday) and still make progress without overtraining and going catabolic?


I wouldnt pay too much attention to that program mate. The PT on it was awful.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

hongman said:


> Reason this came about was that program on Bbc where these dudes were told to eat something like 6000 cals or something.
> 
> Got me thinking, these bb'ers that eat crazy cals every day but are massive - does the eating allow them to train more (everyday) and still make progress without overtraining and going catabolic?


I watched that programme too, basically, they were told to eat 6500 calories per day. This is ridiculous advice. The body would use what it needs (Probably less than 2500 calories) and the rest would be stored as fat. To be that skinny you really don't need many calories, you need to taper calories UP as you get stronger/heavier bearing in mind staying lean. If you go immediately on a massive calorie excess you will only gain the same amount of muscle if you were consuming only a couple hundred over maintenance and a lot of fat on top.

I'm 16.5 stone on a normal day (circa 235 lbs) and 17% body fat. How many calories do you think I consume? Please, take a guess.


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

That is exactly the answer I was looking for. Ta!

Guess? Ok. 3500.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

kingdale said:


> power lifters are training purely to get the best strength generally having a bit of fat does help there are a few that dont carry much fat but that isnt the usual. Who is going to lift more two identical people apart from one is carrying an extra stone of fat? the guy with fat will lift more. Just because one skinny guy deadlifted alot doesnt mean being skinny is an advantage at all. anyway this isnt actually anything to do with the thread.


I never said being skinny or not fat is advantageous, I said being fat ISN'T advantageous. The lymphatic system and it's fat stores does nothing to move the weight. Sorry to burst your bubble, but fat doesn't do anything in the body it just sits there, it doesn't contract, it doesn't extend, it doesn't exert any force whatsoever.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

hongman said:


> That is exactly the answer I was looking for. Ta!
> 
> Guess? Ok. 3500.


About 3000-3200  those kids were like 9 stone.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> I never said being skinny or not fat is advantageous, I said being fat ISN'T advantageous. The lymphatic system and it's fat stores does nothing to move the weight. Sorry to burst your bubble, but fat doesn't do anything in the body it just sits there, it doesn't contract, it doesn't extend, it doesn't exert any force whatsoever.


so 2 guys with the exact same amount of muscle the only difference is one is carrying 3 stone of fat, you really dont think the 3 stone heavier guy will lift more?


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

F.M.J said:


> About 3000-3200  those kids were like 9 stone.


Blimey I'm only about 9st and I eat at least 2,200 cals on a bad day. On a decent day I can top 3,500 lol. I.e massive Sunday roast :-D

I'm gonna get fat!


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

hongman said:


> Blimey I'm only about 9st and I eat at least 2,200 cals on a bad day. On a decent day I can top 3,500 lol. I.e massive Sunday roast :-D
> 
> I'm gonna get fat!


There is a metabolic rate that factors in here somewhere also that would dictate how many calories one would need to gain weight. But in my personal opinion I don't think it would ever differ from person to person so wildly that you would see very big differences. How long have you been eating like that/training?


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

kingdale said:


> so 2 guys with the exact same amount of muscle the only difference is one is carrying 3 stone of fat, you really dont think the 3 stone heavier guy will lift more?


It's a myth mate. And I'm still waiting on an explanation on how fat makes someone push more weight.

You say fat helps push weight, then how come I see fat people now and then in my gym can barely bench press 40kg?

@hongman I apologize for going off topic with this discussion.


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

if your 12 stone and want to be 14 stone its no good eating like a 12 stone person. x


----------



## reza85 (Jan 11, 2009)

flinty90 said:


> if your 12 stone and want to be 14 stone its no good eating like a 12 stone person. x


True


----------



## Pyro (Dec 23, 2011)

being fatter does make you stronger it is to do with leverages theres a video onyoutubewith mark rippetoe explaneing it


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

people always seem to want to make things complicated lol its really quite simple..

first eat enough calories to fuel a workout. workout hard enough to tear muscles. eat enough protein to fix muscles. rest enough to let muscle repair. rinse and repeat ... simples..


----------



## Davo (Sep 11, 2007)

I get what F.M.J is saying in that fat isn't actually going to do anything, but it gives you a bigger mass to leverage the weight, shorter ROM when benching for eg, and helps with stability in exercises like squats.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> It's a myth mate. And I'm still waiting on an explanation on how fat makes someone push more weight.
> 
> You say fat helps push weight, then how come I see fat people now and then in my gym can barely bench press 40kg?
> 
> @hongman I apologize for going off topic with this discussion.


More carbs equal more water retained. More water retained equals bigger muscle since muscle is 70% muscle.

I've been fat. I was a lot stronger than I am now when leaner around a stone or two less.

Its no myth.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> More carbs equal more water retained. More water retained equals bigger muscle since muscle is 70% muscle.
> 
> I've been fat. I was a lot stronger than I am now when leaner around a stone or two less.
> 
> Its no myth.


And water can't be retained by other means? Such as... drinking it? I would like to also point out, fat isn't formed only from carbs...

Still not one person has told me how actual fat that doesn't contract, extend or exert any force whatsoever helps move a weight.

I will give you leverages but that means less ROM...


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)




----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> And water can't be retained by other means? Such as... drinking it? I would like to also point out, fat isn't formed only from carbs...
> 
> Still not one person has told me how actual fat that doesn't contract, extend or exert any force whatsoever helps move a weight.
> 
> I will give you leverages but that means less ROM...


it also gives momentum...


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> And water can't be retained by other means? Such as... drinking it? I would like to also point out, fat isn't formed only from carbs...
> 
> Still not one person has told me how actual fat that doesn't contract, extend or exert any force whatsoever helps move a weight.
> 
> I will give you leverages but that means less ROM...


You understand how glycogen encourages water into the muscle, yes? Completed engorged muscle which is completely full of glyocgen will thus pull in 2.5-3g of water per grams of carbs that person can hold in their muscle, correct? Would you therefore not agree, someone who is fatter will therefore have a far higher likelihood of being able to lift maximum weight for his muscular size due to completely engorged with glyocgen in their muscle and so full of water, no?


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

flinty90 said:


> it also gives momentum...


So basically, it's easier and probably safer to bounce a bar off your chest if you're fat?

How does a fatter person have better momentum in the deadlift then? Or over head press? where you can't bounce a weight.


----------



## Pyro (Dec 23, 2011)

F.M.J said:


> And water can't be retained by other means? Such as... drinking it? I would like to also point out, fat isn't formed only from carbs...
> 
> Still not one person has told me how actual fat that doesn't contract, extend or exert any force whatsoever helps move a weight.
> 
> I will give you leverages but that means less ROM...


no one said the fat helps you lift the it just changes the angal of your levers witch makes the weight easyer to move.





 video to help you understand


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Read my answer skinny boy :tongue:


----------



## Pyro (Dec 23, 2011)

iv posted a video but it says a mod needs to look first.

type mark rippetoe leverags in to youtube and he explaines it


----------



## KingMJ (Mar 24, 2012)

kingdale said:


> I wouldnt pay too much attention to that program mate. The PT on it was awful.


I have to agree. Although, perhaps his logic was vastly overstating how many calories they have to eat, knowing that they will most likely underachieve. And if they think the aim is 6,000 then they may get close to 3,000 before making excuses/giving up. Although, who would blame them! It should be a gradual increase.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> You understand how glycogen encourages water into the muscle, yes? Completed engorged muscle which is completely full of glyocgen will thus pull in 2.5-3g of water per grams of carbs that person can hold in their muscle, correct? Would you therefore not agree, someone who is fatter will therefore have a far higher likelihood of being able to lift maximum weight for his muscular size due to completely engorged with glyocgen in their muscle and so full of water, no?


I do understand yes. But you can't say someone who isn't fat can't have completely engorged muscle. I agree someone who is fat will more likely have consistently full muscles because of excessive diet but again, a non fat person with correct meal timings and enough food throughout the day prior to a session will still have full muscles. A fat person doesn't mean more LBM therefore doesn't mean more water retention specifically in the muscles - muscles will be more consistently full.

300lb man with 225lbs of LBM full muscles is the same as 240lb man with 225 LBM full muscles.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

KingMJ said:


> I have to agree. Although, perhaps his logic was vastly overstating how many calories they have to eat, knowing that they will most likely underachieve. And if they think the aim is 6,000 then they may get close to 3,000 before making excuses/giving up. Although, who would blame them! It should be a gradual increase.


The Pt also telling the fat guy to stop lifting heavy weights because he wants to cut down made me laugh aswell.


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

F.M.J said:


> So basically, it's easier and probably safer to bounce a bar off your chest if you're fat?
> 
> How does a fatter person have better momentum in the deadlift then? Or over head press? where you can't bounce a weight.


Yes and your chest is prob higher up so your arms have less distance to go before lock out.

You can use momentum on both those lifts ? Ohp you jump it up and deadlift they roll the bar forwards then back dont they ?

Im not a expert on strongman lifts at all by the way lol


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

BTW it also depends if you use the likes of Harris Benedict Equation plus weighting for work done. I'd say me training every day is much hard than most so requiring at my current weight and build around 4200 cals to maintain plus a surplus of good cals on top would sit me around 5000 a day. I cut up very easily meaning I'd rather gain a little extra fat and usually extra muscle because I use PEDs allowing a greater protein synthesis and repair...

Harris Benedict Formula - http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/harris-benedict-equation/

To determine your total daily calorie needs, multiply your BMR by the appropriate activity factor, as follows:

If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2

If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.375

If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55

If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.725

If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9


----------



## Davo (Sep 11, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> I do understand yes. But you can't say someone who isn't fat can't have completely engorged muscle. I agree someone who is fat will more likely have consistently full muscles because of excessive diet but again, a non fat person with correct meal timings and enough food throughout the day prior to a session will still have full muscles. A fat person doesn't mean more LBM therefore doesn't mean more water retention specifically in the muscles - muscles will be more consistently full.
> 
> *300lb man with 225lbs of LBM full muscles is the same as 240lb man with 225 LBM full muscles.*


So do you think the 240lb man would be just as strong as the 300lb man?


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> I do understand yes. But you can't say someone who isn't fat can't have completely engorged muscle. I agree someone who is fat will more likely have consistently full muscles because of excessive diet but again, a non fat person with correct meal timings and enough food throughout the day prior to a session will still have full muscles. A fat person doesn't mean more LBM therefore doesn't mean more water retention specifically in the muscles - muscles will be more consistently full.
> 
> 300lb man with 225lbs of LBM full muscles is the same as 240lb man with 225 LBM full muscles.


Yes, but not everyone wants to look pretty. Some like to eat what they like and be strong.

I'm vain, I like to be strong and look good LOL


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

F.M.J said:


> 300lb man with 225lbs of LBM full muscles is the same as 240lb man with 225 LBM full muscles.


Yeah but if these two guys were to run at each other who would come off worse lol


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

jon-kent said:


> Yes and your chest is prob higher up so your arms have less distance to go before lock out.
> 
> You can use momentum on both those lifts ? Ohp you jump it up and deadlift they roll the bar forwards then back dont they ?
> 
> Im not a expert on strongman lifts at all by the way lol


Right, addressing ROM: ANYONE can lift heavier if they use LESS ROM.

Anyone can jump up a weight above their head but how does fat and leverages help in this scenario? It doesn't. In deadlifts anyone can roll and lean a weight up. Don't have to be fat to do it.


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

F.M.J said:


> Right, addressing ROM: ANYONE can lift heavier if they use LESS ROM.
> 
> Anyone can jump up a weight above their head but how does fat and leverages help in this scenario? It doesn't. In deadlifts anyone can roll and lean a weight up. Don't have to be fat to do it.


Yeah but the extra weight from being fat would help


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Yes, but not everyone wants to look pretty. Some like to eat what they like and be strong.
> 
> I'm vain, I like to be strong and look good LOL


This is essentially what it comes down to. Tell Ronnie Coleman he needs to get fat to deadlift/squat 800 lbs for 2 reps 2 weeks out of competition (or was it 4?) I rest my case.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Less rom (unless they lock out) means constant time under tension. Time under tension and muscle trained to failure more often, with a complete diet giving everything and more there body needs would therefore suggest a greater chance of muscle gain than someone eating under their calorie requirement since not one person requires the same calories as the next due to hormonal balance and natural metabolism speed.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

jon-kent said:


> Yeah but the extra weight from being fat would help


Back to square one. Why?


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> This is essentially what it comes down to. Tell Ronnie Coleman he needs to get fat to deadlift/squat 800 lbs for 2 reps 2 weeks out of competition (or was it 4?) I rest my case.


because one guy is ripped and lifts alot does not prove your point at all. You are persistant i will give you that.


----------



## yannyboy (Jun 20, 2009)

The competitors in the Worlds Strongest Man are hardly lean, there must be a reason behind it?


----------



## Pyro (Dec 23, 2011)

F.M.J said:


> Back to square one. Why?


watch the video i posted and he explaines it


----------



## squalllion1uk (Mar 27, 2008)

I might be wrong here but after you put on 3/4 lbs your body naturally adds 1lb of muscle to compensate ?


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Less rom (unless they lock out) means constant time under tension. Time under tension and muscle trained to failure more often, with a complete diet giving everything and more there body needs would therefore suggest a greater chance of muscle gain than someone eating under their calorie requirement since not one person requires the same calories as the next due to hormonal balance and natural metabolism speed.


Well, I agree with you on all points here the only thing I want to add is - back to the original question posed, you only need a couple hundred calories over maintenance to really make sure you get your target macros/calories, 3000 excess IMO is silly - especially if you're training for aesthetics if for anything else then it really doesn't matter how you appear.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> Back to square one. Why?


When is the last time you saw a 240-250lb muscle body builder out lift a fat strong man? There is a couple of exceptions I can think of (like Ronnie, Johnnie Jackson and the like) but there is a general rule of thumb, even if it does just mean that someone weighing in at 350-400lb is carrying 20-25% BF, it still means LBM is around 300lb or so, giving them the strength as sleekness does not matter - the LBM is still there.


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

F.M.J said:


> Back to square one. Why?


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

jon-kent said:


>


bet he lifts alot


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

kingdale said:


> because one guy is ripped and lifts alot does not prove your point at all. You are persistant i will give you that.


lol i can picture fmj sitting there all week till he gets an answer or till we wll agree with him haha... is wife is like. "babe are you coming to bed " fmj replies "no goddammit i want this answering you bitch" wife replies. "ok hunny i love you " fmj sniggers to himself and whispers under his breath " winner"...lol...


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> When is the last time you saw a 240-250lb muscle body builder out lift a fat strong man? There is a couple of exceptions I can think of (like Ronnie, Johnnie Jackson and the like) but there is a general rule of thumb, even if it does just mean that someone weighing in at 350-400lb is carrying 20-25% BF, it still means LBM is around 300lb or so, giving them the strength as sleekness does not matter - the LBM is still there.


If someone weighs 350 lbs and had 25% body fat they would have 262 lbs LBM.

This question is null and void, a bodybuilder spends decades training for TUT not strength. Strength and muscle size isn't completely proportionate.


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

kingdale said:


> bet he lifts alot


More than if he was ripped lol


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

fmj are you fat or skinny ??


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

:lol:


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

jon-kent said:


> More than if he was ripped lol


tell me about it hate how my 8 stone brother out lifts me because he is so dam ripped.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

flinty90 said:


> fmj are you fat or skinny ??


Both at the moment.


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

flinty90 said:


> fmj are you fat or skinny ??


Look at his avi mate ! He hasnt gotta be worried about what fat helps with anyway lol


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Why would there be a limit? Eat more, train more, more gear. WHat limit do you mean?


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

kingdale said:


> tell me about it hate how my 8 stone brother out lifts me because he is so dam ripped.


Its because he's got more momentum and ROM :whistling:


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

jon-kent said:


> Look at his avi mate ! He hasnt gotta be worried about what fat helps with anyway lol


That photo is very deceiving actually mate, you wear a shirt, waistcoat and tuxedo jacket, stand in a massive church with 100 some feet high ceiling and have a photo taken see how big you look 

6'4" 16.5 stone at 17% body fat isn't small - it's not massive either but certainly not small.

Everyone is just being p!ssy now and can't be bothered to deal with that tbh.

I will say though, I never once said you are stronger because you have less fat or are skinny.

The essence of my posts were fat - which is stored in the lymphatic system, and is only moved by muscular contractions has no effect on force applied - you all just learned something new today  take a basic biology lesson ffs.

Even if fat gain helps lifting via leverages most of the people on here do not require that since they don't train for strength and just use getting fat as a BS excuse for a 'bulk' everyone likes to feel a little bulkier in their t-shirts but when it comes down to it, it just looks sh!t.


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

F.M.J said:


> That photo is very deceiving actually mate, you wear a shirt, waistcoat and tuxedo jacket, stand in a massive church with 100 some feet high ceiling and have a photo taken see how big you look
> 
> 6'4" 16.5 stone at 17% body fat isn't small - it's not massive either but certainly not small.
> 
> ...


Well thanks for the free lesson mate, but you sound tired so get into bed and get some rest.....and remember you was looking for xmas presents !!! :wink:


----------



## flinty90 (Jul 1, 2010)

hahaha fmj are you on a fcukin sex ban or something ?? go to bed ffs x


----------



## Natty.Solider (May 4, 2012)

F.M.J ever thought about changing your username to F.M.L ?

classic example of people over complicating things. strong men aren't bb lean because have we all forgotten how it is training on low carbs compared to high carbs? yeah i know, if you want to be the strongest you can be, train on a carb defict with saturated muscles, becuase you will look better lifting the wight at 8%. strong men compete to be strong men. do you now any competing strong men in real life? literally not one fcuk is given about how they look, ones in good nick is a by-product of a good consistent diet.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Like how you too the lowest figure of the two and the highest BF!

Why not 400lb and 20% body fat so 320lbm? 80lb of fat looks, well fat, but 320lb of LBM is still gonna be a strong sod - no?

Case in point, Terry Hollands, 410lb and around 20% body fat. LBM is thus around 328lb.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Natty.Solider said:


> F.M.J ever thought about changing your username to F.M.L ?
> 
> classic example of people over complicating things. strong men aren't bb lean because have we all forgotten how it is training on low carbs compared to high carbs? yeah i know, if you want to be the strongest you can be, train on a carb defict with saturated muscles, becuase you will look better lifting the wight at 8%. strong men compete to be strong men. do you now any competing strong men in real life? literally not one fcuk is given about how they look, ones in good nick is a by-product of a good consistent diet.


I've not even read all of your post tbh but have you read any of mine? Did I once say training on a calorie deficit is as/more effective as a surplus? Fuark!!

View attachment 102389


You are, essentially, an oxygen thief. Just leave.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Like how you too the lowest figure of the two and the highest BF!
> 
> Why not 400lb and 20% body fat so 320lbm? 80lb of fat looks, well fat, but 320lb of LBM is still gonna be a strong sod - no?


I honestly didn't do that on purpose mate. I read your posts and did the calculation on what 2 figures I remembered from your post.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

I think someone is on a man period.


----------



## Natty.Solider (May 4, 2012)

F.M.J said:


> I've not even read all of your post tbh but have you read any of mine? Did I once say training on a calorie deficit is as/more effective as a surplus? Fuark!!
> 
> View attachment 102389
> 
> ...


get off your high horse. your a complete idiot, sounds like your reading from a text book you boring bastard.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> I honestly didn't do that on purpose mate. I read your posts and did the calculation on what 2 figures I remembered from your post.


Like I say tho in my edit, Terry Hollands is 410lb, around 20% body fat so around 328lb lean body mass. 82lb in anyones book is a lot of fat but him being that size has allowed the extra strength and thus gained muscle. Do you think he'd be that size if he ate a few hundred calories above his maintenance?


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

I am a strength trainer and I dont give a fck about LBM/BF/Budgie smugglers/**** tans etc.

Enjoy what you do and excel.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Natty.Solider said:


> get off your high horse. your a complete idiot, sounds like your reading from a text book you boring bastard.


Lol I'm a complete idiot and you can't even quote me from the computer screen you're looking at right now.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Like I say tho in my edit, Terry Hollands is 410lb, around 20% body fat so around 328lb lean body mass. 82lb in anyones book is a lot of fat but him being that size has allowed the extra strength and thus gained muscle. Do you think he'd be that size if he ate a few hundred calories above his maintenance?


Hey, it was Mike Mentzer who suggested you only need 16 calories a day above maintenance. Obviously everyone will consume more than that though. Your body is very efficient at taking exactly what it needs and dumping the rest.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

Calorie intake for Terry BTW is quoted by him at 8000 per day...

http://www.gravesendreporter.co.uk/news/dartford_strongman_prepares_to_face_the_best_1_832569


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> Hey, it was Mike Mentzer who suggested you only need 16 calories a day above maintenance. Obviously everyone will consume more than that though. Your body is very efficient at taking exactly what it needs and dumping the rest.


16 calories above maintenance you would put barely any weight on at all if any.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

BTW the PC lost a post I made.

I was saying, I was taking in 6500 calories. My maintenance is around 4200. Your science says I should use about 4500. At 6500ish per day I was gaining 1lb per week. Basic maths says I was around 2000 over per day and thus 14000 a week, and so should have gained perhaps 4lb of fat per week, give or take.

What would you suggest was happening here?


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

kingdale said:


> 16 calories above maintenance you would put barely any weight on at all if any.


That is the point. 16 calories - 4 grams of protein over maintenance per day would yield 10 pounds of muscle (not fat) per year - 10 pounds of muscle gained in one year for someone who has been training several years and is natural is very respectable.

The point of so little calories over maintenance is to avoid accumulation of fat. It's a hypothetical situation.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> BTW the PC lost a post I made.
> 
> I was saying, I was taking in 6500 calories. My maintenance is around 4200. Your science says I should use about 4500. At 6500ish per day I was gaining 1lb per week. Basic maths says I was around 2000 over per day and thus 14000 a week, and so should have gained perhaps 4lb of fat per week, give or take.
> 
> What would you suggest was happening here?


You weren't gaining 1lb of muscle per week mate, guaranteed.


----------



## Natty.Solider (May 4, 2012)

Papa Lazarou said:


> What would you suggest was happening here?


Witch craft! he wont understand, it didn't come out of a textbook. I know this guy right.. 5ft 8", 16.5 stone stage weight... thick as **** but boy does he look good


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> That is the point. 16 calories - 4 grams of protein over maintenance per day would yield 10 pounds of muscle (not fat) per year - 10 pounds of muscle gained in one year for someone who has been training several years and is natural is very respectable.
> 
> The point of so little calories over maintenance is to avoid accumulation of fat. It's a hypothetical situation.


if someone had being training for years ate 16 calories above maintenance they would not put any weight on.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> That is the point. 16 calories - 4 grams of protein over maintenance per day would yield 10 pounds of muscle (not fat) per year - 10 pounds of muscle gained in one year for someone who has been training several years and is natural is very respectable.
> 
> The point of so little calories over maintenance is to avoid accumulation of fat. It's a hypothetical situation.


Good luck to a natty putting on 10lb of muscle a year :laugh: :thumb:


----------



## Natty.Solider (May 4, 2012)

hope your enjoying your lesson papa. maybe you will see the errors of your ways.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> You weren't gaining 1lb of muscle per week mate, guaranteed.


So in essence I'm either gaining maximal muscle, would you not agree. I'm not limiting my gains through under eating?

I'm in agreement I'd crap a lot of calories out, never doubted that.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

kingdale said:


> if someone had being training for years ate 16 calories above maintenance they would not put any weight on.


If you burned [random number] 3256 calories in 1 day (including every single bit of physical activity and accounting for BMR/RMR) - every single day of the year without fail, you eat 16 calories over that, you would.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> If you burned [random number] 3256 calories in 1 day (including every single bit of physical activity and accounting for BMR/RMR) - every single day of the year without fail, you eat 16 calories over that, you would.


Gaining weight and power lifting doesnt happen in a text book i think this is where you have being confused in all of your arguments.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> If you burned [random number] 3256 calories in 1 day (including every single bit of physical activity and accounting for BMR/RMR) - every single day of the year without fail, you eat 16 calories over that, you would.


Do you really think it is this simple?

I'm going to bed. Need to get in my 32 extra calories tomorrow. 4232 from here on in.

FMJ - I need your address. If in 1 years time I don't have 20lb extra muscle (i've allowed 10lb more due to assistance) I'm coming to f**k you up


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:



> So in essence I'm either gaining maximal muscle, would you not agree. I'm not limiting my gains through under eating?
> 
> I'm in agreement I'd crap a lot of calories out, never doubted that.


Yes I agree 100% mate. I am in favour of eating too much to make sure you get everything you need but only a little too much. This is why I said like 5 pages back I consume 3000-3200 calories per day because I should be consuming 3000 calories but 3200 is just fine with me so long as I don't under-eat on macros.

My weight fluctuates very little but my strength is going up week-by-week basis.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Do you really think it is this simple?


No, I didn't say it's that simple, I have already said that would be almost impossible several times on this thread and that it's a hypothetical situation.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

kingdale said:


> Gaining weight and power lifting doesnt happen in a text book i think this is where you have being confused in all of your arguments.


I'm not confused. Maybe you are? Calories in = more than calories out = weight gain. Calories in = less than calories out = weight loss - that is what I have said, how is this confusing? :S

And in the respect of consuming 16 calories over maintenance is for muscle development, so for bodybuilders. It was Mike Mentzer who came up with that. Not me. He was a bodybuilder if you didn't know.


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

Ok no expert post but surely the heavier you are the more you can lift. Simple down to the fact you body is used to carrying more weight. How come another guy my height who has never been in a gym who is 5 stone heavier than me (pure fat) can lift more?..... surely it's obvious


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

pYp3s said:


> surely it's obvious


it really is.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> No, I didn't say it's that simple, I have already said that would be almost impossible several times on this thread and that it's a hypothetical situation.


So, hypothetically, at 4200 maintenance for me, assisted with aas, growth and slin what would my calorie requirement be. Remember this needs to be correct, otherwise I'm coming to f**k you up for wasting a year of my life :laugh:


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

If being heavier counts for nothing then why bulk? More size fat or not = lift more = gain more muscle then cut no?


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

are we being trolled or is F.M.J thick?


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> So, hypothetically, at 4200 maintenance for me, assisted with aas, growth and slin what would my calorie requirement be. Remember this needs to be correct, otherwise I'm coming to f**k you up for wasting a year of my life :laugh:


Lmao, I wouldn't have a clue mate, I've never used AAS so have no experience in trial and error on that front in respect to calorie consumption. I did say, however, a few pages back that on AAS your body could use a lot more calories than if not on AAS simply due to the protein synthesis turnover, it won't dump as many calories as dead weight [fat].


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

pYp3s said:


> If being heavier counts for nothing then why bulk? More size fat or not = lift more = gain more muscle then cut no?


The idea behind the start of this conversation is that FAT has NO contribution to movement. Fat does not aid muscle contraction.


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> I'm not confused. Maybe you are? Calories in = more than calories out = weight gain. Calories in = less than calories out = weight loss - that is what I have said, how is this confusing? :S
> 
> And in the respect of consuming 16 calories over maintenance is for muscle development, so for bodybuilders. It was Mike Mentzer who came up with that. Not me. He was a bodybuilder if you didn't know.


Does this also mean if I diet at 16 calories under my maintenance I'll lose 10lb a year? So 64 calories less per day day and in 1 year I can lose 40lb and thus 10lb in 3 months?


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

I've read this thread for too long... I know the bigger and heavier I am muscle or fat I can lift more... basic science.. bed time good luck people :thumb:


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Does this also mean if I diet at 16 calories under my maintenance I'll lose 10lb a year? So 64 calories less per day day and in 1 year I can lose 40lb and thus 10lb in 3 months?


 :lol: I have fcuking no idea. I am going to say no. But give it a go and report back to me. I'm interested to know :lol:


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

F.M.J said:


> The idea behind the start of this conversation is that FAT has NO contribution to movement. Fat does not aid muscle contraction.


Sorry I never seen that. I just seen the fat/weight doesn't count for lifts


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

F.M.J said:


> I'm not confused. Maybe you are? Calories in = more than calories out = weight gain. Calories in = less than calories out = weight loss - that is what I have said, how is this confusing? :S
> 
> And in the respect of consuming 16 calories over maintenance is for muscle development, so for bodybuilders. It was Mike Mentzer who came up with that. Not me. He was a bodybuilder if you didn't know.


Im sure he knows who mike mentzer is lol. You seem like a bit of a expert (know it all) on putting weight on and getting bigger so why havnt you taken your own advice ? By your own admission your a skinny fat guy ?????!!!!


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

pYp3s said:


> I've read this thread for too long... I know the bigger and heavier I am muscle or fat I can lift more... *basic science*.. bed time good luck people :thumb:


This is not science though :lol:

I think you're all pulling my fcuking leg and I'm just being too damn gullible and falling for it.

Fat - adipose tissue - as a tissue does not aid in contracting muscle [deja vu]

Muscle - muscle tissue - is the only tissue responsible for lifting weights


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

And realistically fat does contribute to movement. It's not solid no but it's weight regardless which has an effect om momentum... I'd say anyway


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> :lol: I have fcuking no idea. I am going to say no. But give it a go and report back to me. I'm interested to know :lol:


Just using Mentzer logic mate.

Essentially he's a fruit loop. Genetically gifted and strange in the head.

His maths are based that there is 600 calories in a lb of muscle. 6000 in 10lb. A year in to 6000 gives us 16 calories a day.

However, does it take us all 600 calories to build a lb of muscle? Doubt it.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

jon-kent said:


> Im sure he knows who mike mentzer is lol. You seem like a bit of a expert (know it all) on putting weight on and getting bigger so why havnt you taken your own advice ? By your own admission your a skinny fat guy ?????!!!!


Fcuk me I'm not a one of them know-it-all guys. See my post on adipose tissue - probably above this.

I am working on it mate, it's a very long hard working progress. I'm currently adding more activity in the form of light-moderate cardio to drop down to 10% body fat. I only have to lose 7% (24 lbs - iirc) and will be doing it over a period of 4 months as to not tax my CNS too much and muscle gains.


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

F.M.J said:


> This is not science though :lol:
> 
> I think you're all pulling my fcuking leg and I'm just being too damn gullible and falling for it.
> 
> ...


Muscle is not the only thing responsible is it.....what about poor form when people use their body to lift. Yes muscle included but swinging about using momentum?... the muscle grows not the fat but it still helps shift the weight doesn't it.

It's like saying bones have nothing to do with lifting lol


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

F.M.J said:


> Fcuk me I'm not a one of them know-it-all guys. See my post on adipose tissue - probably above this.
> 
> I am working on it mate, it's a very long hard working progress. I'm currently adding more activity in the form of light-moderate cardio to drop down to 10% body fat. I only have to lose 7% (24 lbs - iirc) and will be doing it over a period of 4 months as to not tax my CNS too much and muscle gains.


Fair enough mate, just making sure you wasnt a "expert swimmer whos never been in a pool" lol


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

pYp3s said:


> Muscle is not the only thing responsible is it.....what about poor form when people use their body to lift. Yes muscle included but swinging about using momentum?... the muscle grows not the fat but it still helps shift the weight doesn't it.
> 
> It's like saying bones have nothing to do with lifting lol


Swinging about is because of other muscles contracting and extending. You don't use fat to contract or extend anything. It just literally sits there doing nothing at all. Hence why I refer to it as dead weight. If you are morbidly obese then yeah fat will swing harder than sh!t off a stick.


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

So anyone see the st Pierre vs Condit fight? Was good eh?...


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

pYp3s said:


> So anyone see the st Pierre vs Condit fight? Was good eh?...


Lol yeah not bad mate. Gsp looked like he wanted to fight this time not just wrestle !


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Just using Mentzer logic mate.
> 
> Essentially he's a fruit loop. Genetically gifted and strange in the head.
> 
> ...


I don't know mate :lol: I'm not prepared to put everyone on tests and trials to see how dense their muscles are. Some of your posts have made me laugh though so cheers.


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

jon-kent said:


> Lol yeah not bad mate. Gsp looked like he wanted to fight this time not just wrestle !


Yeah was a nice little war. I hope we all get to see Silva vs Jones but I can't see it


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Funny thing is I bet if someone came into this thread with a more reputable name [dtlv, prodiver, joshua] and said the same thing no one would have been so hostile and immature to call names and wouldn't be so arrogant.

Never mind, I know my position in the hierarchy of the forum.

Night folks.


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

pYp3s said:


> Yeah was a nice little war. I hope we all get to see Silva vs Jones but I can't see it


Rather see gsp vs silva lol


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> Funny thing is I bet if someone came into this thread with a more reputable name [dtlv, prodiver, joshua] and said the same thing no one would have been so hostile and immature to call names and wouldn't be so arrogant.
> 
> Never mind, I know my position in the hierarchy of the forum.
> 
> Night folks.


but they wouldnt say the same thing, because it was wrong :lol:


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

jon-kent said:


> Rather see gsp vs silva lol


I think Silva is too good for any of them tbh. Jones is the only one with that height advantage to really make a show of it I reckon.


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

kingdale said:


> but they wouldnt say the same thing, because it was wrong :lol:


Stoke that fire brah lol


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

pYp3s said:


> I think Silva is too good for any of them tbh. Jones is the only one with that height advantage to really make a show of it I reckon.


Yeah i agree mate. Just hate jones so much dont want him to be the 1 to beat silva lol


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

pYp3s said:


> Stoke that fire brah lol


i cant sleep.


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

jon-kent said:


> Yeah i agree mate. Just hate jones so much dont want him to be the 1 to beat silva lol


I hated him aswell tbh. I hoped to **** Bonner would bash him but when he floored him like he did I though fair doos lol


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

pYp3s said:


> I hated him aswell tbh. I hoped to **** Bonner would bash him but when he floored him like he did I though fair doos lol


Lol yeah i know. Hate them pu$$y knee kicks though !


----------



## pYp3s (Nov 8, 2012)

jon-kent said:


> Lol yeah i know. Hate them pu$$y knee kicks though !


Yeah but it works mate lol. He's just so tall he can get away with anything.. he's only like 24 aswell..

I'd bash him ****in punk hahaha


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

pYp3s said:


> Yeah but it works mate lol. He's just so tall he can get away with anything.. he's only like 24 aswell..
> 
> I'd bash him ****in punk hahaha


Haha yeah same here lol


----------



## Papa Lazarou (Jul 4, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> I don't know mate :lol: I'm not prepared to put everyone on tests and trials to see how dense their muscles are. Some of your posts have made me laugh though so cheers.


I've tried to have fun without taking the ****. Was a laugh!


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

16 cals above maintenance. This thread is comedy gold.


----------



## mc187 (Dec 30, 2007)

jon-kent said:


> Haha yeah same here lol





pYp3s said:


> Yeah but it works mate lol. He's just so tall he can get away with anything.. he's only like 24 aswell..
> 
> I'd bash him ****in punk hahaha


dana needs to make the big fights happen in UFC, otherwise it risks losing all the momentum it has built up in the last few years.

http://larrybrownsports.com/mma/gsp-anderson-silva-fight/163631

gsp saying he will fight silva when he is good and ready - imo this will be in a couple of years time and both fighters will be past their respective bests.

what are your thoughts on jj moving up to hw division? i think there are more challenges to him at hw - i dont like him much but have to give the guy credit, does the business in the cage.

on the subject of this thread - dont overeat but get enough calories so you are growing. eat above maintainance to the point where you are gaining a decent amount each week like 1-2lbs. if your "bulking" then enjoy your foods - no need to be overly strict.


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Jesus christ this thread took off while I was sleeping and repairing my muscles lol 

Carry on...


----------



## Natty.Solider (May 4, 2012)

gonna add 3 stalks of celery to my diet when im bulking instead of an extra 2000kcal. thats about 18kcal tho, i hope im not over-doing it.


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

Bump to read later at work


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Natty.Solider said:


> gonna add 3 stalks of celery to my diet when im bulking instead of an extra 2000kcal. thats about 18kcal tho, i hope im not over-doing it.


Read this will you.

Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty Nutrition

Sick of reading these immature comments, thought this was a board for adults, not children.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

Natty.Solider said:


> gonna add 3 stalks of celery to my diet when im bulking instead of an extra 2000kcal. thats about 18kcal tho, i hope im not over-doing it.


just make sure you dont put on too much fat because it wont help you lift anymore weight.


----------



## Natty.Solider (May 4, 2012)

F.M.J said:


> Read this will you.
> 
> Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty Nutrition
> 
> Sick of reading these immature comments, thought this was a board for adults, not children.


My diet is looked after by a mr. universe. But thanks anyway!


----------



## DigIt (Jun 20, 2012)

macros = macronutrients. when someone says macros they mean how much macronutrients they require to do whatever it is they do

& talk about over thinking lol. you're just gonna hurt your brain trying to work that out mate


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

You will get fat yeh sure but anytime ive tryed to stay lean when bulking muscle gains are less. id rather eat alot of good kcals put some fat on and be bigger than only put a couple of pounds over the same amount of time. want to be big like a pro gota eat like a pro lots of food


----------



## NovemberDelta (Apr 17, 2011)

F.M.J said:


> Funny thing is I bet if someone came into this thread with a more reputable name [dtlv, prodiver, joshua] and said the same thing no one would have been so hostile and immature to call names and wouldn't be so arrogant.
> 
> Never mind, I know my position in the hierarchy of the forum.
> 
> Night folks.


I agree mate people have been really wan.y in this thread especially as it was just a hypothetical debate.

having said that, most of what mentzer says is not worth listening to! As said genetically gifted fruit loop.


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

Natty.Solider said:


> My diet is looked after by a mr. universe. But thanks anyway!


Best answer ever


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Natty.Solider said:


> My diet is looked after by a mr. universe. But thanks anyway!


 :yawn: I literally don't care. Thank God for the ignore button.


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

Papa Lazarou said:


> Good luck to a natty putting on 10lb of muscle a year :laugh: :thumb:


first I find out that UFC stars all lie in interviews, then I find out I`m not going to get big this year ........... I`m going back to been a fat bastrd, at least I can lift more!


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

saxondale said:


> first I find out that UFC stars all lie in interviews, then I find out I`m not going to get big this year ........... I`m going back to been a fat bastrd, at least I can lift more!


Lol the ufc guys arnt lying mate the magazines print the sh1t lol


----------



## Davo (Sep 11, 2007)

F.M.J said:


> Read this will you.
> 
> Mike Mentzer Heavy Duty Nutrition
> 
> Sick of reading these immature comments, thought this was a board for adults, not children.


Not got time to read it all but can you link some of the studies/randomised control trials /any research at all that Mentzer is basing his ideas on? Or is it just his own anecdotal evidence?


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Davo said:


> Not got time to read it all but can you link some of the studies/randomised control trials /any research at all that Mentzer is basing his ideas on? Or is it just his own anecdotal evidence?


I don't think he's referenced the book actually which is odd. I know that there are some Mike Mentzer speech/interviews kicking around the internet though where he talks science behind nutrition/lifting etc.


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

Entertaining thread to read 

How about this, a 200lb 10% bf guy who trained for strength against a 200lb 20% bf guy who trained for bodybuilding, the leaner guy would lift more yes?

Other way round, 200lb 10% bf guy trains for bb, 200lb 20% bf guy trains for strength, the fatter guy would lift more.

So surely all down to the training you have spent years doing?

(can open, worms everywhere)


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

hongman said:


> Reason this came about was that program on Bbc where these dudes were told to eat something like 6000 cals or something.
> 
> Got me thinking, these bb'ers that eat crazy cals every day but are massive - does the eating allow them to train more (everyday) and still make progress without overtraining and going catabolic?


I eat 6,000 cals/day plus, infact according to the Bod Pod caloric expenditure formulas, I need to eat about 5600 cals just to stay where I am/was (that was when I weighed 104.5kg at 8.1% Bf, i've since gone to 107.4 kg today, BF reading next week).

I'm far from huge at 6' and 236lb....

I train my ass off, and I'm well known on here for taking $hit loads of AAS (currently 4g/week of injectables, 300mg/day oxys).

If I don't eat, my weight doesnt increase. Simples. I don't even watch macros anymore; I have burgers/fries 3-4nights/week and pizza, 1L of ice cream every night (its in my log) etc..

food fuels both training and growth.... AAS allows your body to overcome things like increasing cortisol that would normally reduce your muscle size, and allow you to keep training harder...

Some AAS like tren, are well known to infact bind at the gluco-corticoid (eg cortisol) receptors, blocking the action of cortisol and allowing continued growth..

you need both AAS and food.... without the AAS you will just convert the excess cals to fat...


----------



## saxondale (Nov 11, 2012)

school science - force (required to move stationary object) = MASS (weight applied to initiate move) x ACCELERATION (time taken)*

ergo fat guys can lift more.

*dont quote me on this, its been 30 years


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Does this muscle-wasting cortisol have anything to do with corticosteriods, like prednisolone?

Reason I ask is because I sometimes have to take a course of the pred, and wondered if that would then hinder efforts?

Found this, seems prednisolone can indeed hinder progress as it mimics Cortisol...

http://arthritis.about.com/od/prednisone/a/prednisonefacts.htm


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

FMJ, I will set up a journal where i eat 6000cals+ a day and you can join in and eat 16 cals above maintenance a day. We can see who gains more until Jan 1st. Whaddya think?


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

hongman said:


> Does this muscle-wasting cortisol have anything to do with corticosteriods, like prednisolone?
> 
> Reason I ask is because I sometimes have to take a course of the pred, and wondered if that would then hinder efforts?
> 
> ...


yes mate, cortico-steroids do the EXACT OPPOSITE to anabolic-steroids.... this is in fact why tren can bind at the gluco-corticoid receptor (as can deca, but deca acts to increase water retention).

so if you take prednislone, it'd not great for progess, more so if natty..

At any rate this is the part that natty's can't get through their heads; its not a matter of AAS making muscle growth quicker or easier, its the fact that they ENABLE you to overcome your natural rise in cortisol that limits muscle growth (hence natty's can never, ever, reach the muscularity of an AAS user):

http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/h99-009#.ULdHA44hdd4

or:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00262811?LI=true#page-1

where its clear that cortisol level is an important indicator of when the muscle can no longer repair/recover from the training. This is what limits nattys.

BBs use, not just AAS that over come cortisol's effects, but also drugs like Cytadren/Omnadren that actually REDUCE cortisol production- this is why chemically assisted BBs achieve muscularity way above any natty...



Huntingground said:


> FMJ, I will set up a journal where i eat 6000cals+ a day and you can join in and eat 16 cals above maintenance a day. We can see who gains more until Jan 1st. Whaddya think?


I actually did the calcs a number of times, but here's a brief version (@FMJ pay attention!):

-assuming 100% of ingested protein (above maintenance) is used for muscle growth (only possible with AAS, even then not 100%).

-1kg of muscle is 75% water; so 250g of solid protein (why steak gets smaller as it goes from rare-to well done- water loss)

-to put on 1kg of muscle in one week means 250g of protein/week above maintenance, or 35.7g/day.

-to "fuel" the extra muscle- say the same amount of extra carbs/day

-so there you have it, an extra 144 cals from protein, and 144 cals from carbs for a total of 288cals/day MAX for 1kg of muscle/week, ASSUMING 100% of all extra protein can be used for protein synthesis....


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

What FMJ is failing to realise is that gains taper off.

In my experience(I am lifetime natty)....if I eat clean, I go lean, get weaker even if I am above maintenance macros. Work is easier but the lifting isn't.

If I eat half clean/half junk, I gain weight(half lard, quarter water,quarter muscle perhaps). I get stronger,feel more tired, work is hard work etc.

If I eat junk, I don't gain much more than above and feel like crap.

I am lean at 16.5st, lardy at 18st and I'm 6' 2.

Using AAS, I am guessing changes the game totally.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Huntingground said:


> FMJ, I will set up a journal where i eat 6000cals+ a day and you can join in and eat 16 cals above maintenance a day. We can see who gains more until Jan 1st. Whaddya think?


@FMJ, fancy it? I will be using 1.5g Test, 1g Tren and 1g Mast. Also orals (high dose Var etc). No GH or Slin.


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

So basically if a natty uses AAS once or twice, gets decent gains, comes off AAS but keeps training hard and eating well, he will still eventually go back to natty size because of cortisol limitations?

So if one does not want to use AAS for the rest of his life, the only real benefit to using AAS is to accelerate his gains that are still within his natural genetic abilities - is that statement more or less correct?

EDIT: Anyone know how potent cortisol really is?

I.E would a 7 day course of 30mg Pred really affect anything, or are we only talking higher dose/longer term use to notice detrimental effects?


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

hongman said:


> So basically if a natty uses AAS once or twice, gets decent gains, comes off AAS but keeps training hard and eating well, he will still eventually go back to natty size because of cortisol limitations?
> 
> So if one does not want to use AAS for the rest of his life, the only real benefit to using AAS is to accelerate his gains that are still within his natural genetic abilities - is that statement more or less correct?
> 
> ...


yes, you've got it- why do you think AAS users keep cycling/stay on? its not the joy of jabbing and swallowing pills (necessary evil); its the desire to achieve, then maintain (at least) or improve that level of muscularity...

You don't have to use AAS, you could use cytadren+ arimidex+clomid+anti-inflammatory meds (post training) to reduce cortisol, and boost natty t-levels... but apart from the fact all those meds are oral, I don't see how its any better than taking AAS.... But technically you could claim natty status.... like many do...

Its difficult to tell regarding pred- it really depends on how much it raises YOUR serum cortisol levels, and if that makes them higher than your T levels...


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

also.... mike mentzer never got big by eating 16cals above maintenance, he got big same as everyone else, he only started spouting that crap when he was losing the plot, more towards the end.


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

ausbuilt said:


> yes, you've got it- why do you think AAS users keep cycling/stay on? its not the joy of jabbing and swallowing pills (necessary evil); its the desire to achieve, then maintain (at least) or improve that level of muscularity...
> 
> You don't have to use AAS, you could use cytadren+ arimidex+clomid+anti-inflammatory meds (post training) to reduce cortisol, and boost natty t-levels... but apart from the fact all those meds are oral, I don't see how its any better than taking AAS.... But technically you could claim natty status.... like many do...
> 
> Its difficult to tell regarding pred- it really depends on how much it raises YOUR serum cortisol levels, and if that makes them higher than your T levels...


Well at this moment in time I dont think I want to be on for the rest of my days, so it looks like it'll just be to accelerate my gains!


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

Fatstuff said:


> also.... mike mentzer never got big by eating 16cals above maintenance, he got big same as everyone else, he only started spouting that crap when he was losing the plot, more towards the end.


yeah, think the amphetamines got to him in the end...



hongman said:


> Well at this moment in time I dont think I want to be on for the rest of my days, so it looks like it'll just be to accelerate my gains!


you'll notice many TRT people "doubling" or "adding" to their TRT... which is a long term approach to carrying more muscle than usual into old age...


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

hongman said:


> Well at this moment in time I dont think I want to be on for the rest of my days, so it looks like it'll just be to accelerate my gains!


that is how everyone starts


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Yeah I know lol, but as long as I know in my head what I am letting myself in for and not under any false pretenses I think I am armed the best way possible before diving in.


----------



## DigIt (Jun 20, 2012)

hongman said:


> Well at this moment in time I dont think I want to be on for the rest of my days, so it looks like *it'll just be to accelerate my gains!*


hahaha justifying that in your own way. don't you actually enjoy your training and gains week to week? you'd be wishing away something you enjoy by 'accelerating' the process...at least i hope you enjoy it, i ****ing love it


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

I love training! But I am impatient for the body I want and I make no excuses for it.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

hongman said:


> I love training! But I am impatient for the body I want and I make no excuses for it.


same as me currently on my first cycle since starting training again and loving it. Aslong as you do your research i dont see much of a problem with it.


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Yeah I have done lot and lots of reading here and elsewhere!

I'm going to do 40mg dol x 42 days pretty soon as my intro to AAS with a view of doing a Test E/500mg pw in Feb. Originally I was just waiting for the Feb course but my buddy asked me to get him some dbol so I thought why not and we split the cost


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

hongman said:


> Yeah I have done lot and lots of reading here and elsewhere!
> 
> I'm going to do 40mg dol x 42 days pretty soon as my intro to AAS with a view of doing a Test E/500mg pw in Feb. Originally I was just waiting for the Feb course but my buddy asked me to get him some dbol so I thought why not and we split the cost


I'd save the dbol until your test e cycle, 42 days is just pointless...


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

hongman said:


> Yeah I have done lot and lots of reading here and elsewhere!
> 
> I'm going to do 40mg dol x 42 days pretty soon as my intro to AAS with a view of doing a Test E/500mg pw in Feb. Originally I was just waiting for the Feb course but my buddy asked me to get him some dbol so I thought why not and we split the cost


I would go for test and a Dbol kick start thats what im part way through and is going really well. I see people run dbol for 6 weeks and there results dont look too impressive probably partially down to bad diet also though.


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)




----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Hmm, been reading lots about dbol only cycles, and most seem to get results? Another reason for deciding on an oral course first was because of the short half life - i.e if AAS didnt agree with me etc I could come off them quick.

Dont forget I am an AAS virgin, I thought I'd respond pretty well to them tbh?!

Plus it works out numbers wise for 250 tabs which I got:

40mg x 42 days = 168 tabs

Leaves 82 tabs which is good for 20 days of 40mg ED as a kickstart to my Test cycle!


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

hongman said:


> Hmm, been reading lots about dbol only cycles, and most seem to get results? Another reason for deciding on an oral course first was because of the short half life - i.e if AAS didnt agree with me etc I could come off them quick.
> 
> Dont forget I am an AAS virgin, I thought I'd respond pretty well to them tbh?!
> 
> ...


You would get ok results im just not a fan of short oral only cycles. Takes a while to build muscle can only put on so much over a short 6 week period. You would be much happier with the results of 12 weeks test e with 5 or 6 weeks kick start of dbol.


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

I can see what you're saying, and I would agree if choosing one or the other. But seeing as I have enough tabs I thought why not do both 

Test E cycle will be 10 weeks with full protection (HCG etc), and dbol kick.

I never understand why people do 12 week cycles, vials normally come in 10ml right? so 2ml pw for 500-600mg (which seems to be the most common) - 2 x 10ml = 10 weeks.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

hongman said:


> I can see what you're saying, and I would agree if choosing one or the other. But seeing as I have enough tabs I thought why not do both
> 
> Test E cycle will be 10 weeks with full protection (HCG etc), and dbol kick.
> 
> I never understand why people do 12 week cycles, vials normally come in 10ml right? so 2ml pw for 500-600mg (which seems to be the most common) - 2 x 10ml = 10 weeks.


yeah give it a go no harm in it. Im doing 15 rather than leaving a bit of test in the vial for the next cycle. Have some extra nolva incase you start to get gyno on the dbol i take 20mg a day on Dbol.


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Yeah I will have a pack of 30 x 20mg on hand. 30mg I've been told is generally OK, 50mg is pretty gyno prone so 40mg being middle ground.

I have no idea how gyno prone I am and I'm not risking moobs! If I get itchy nips I'll just pop 20mg Nolva alongside Dbol and see how it goes, up it if need be. At 40mg I think I will run 2 week PCT anyway just to be safe.


----------



## Robbie789 (Sep 6, 2012)

I can't remember where I read it, but when bulking I've always aimed for 500kcals above maintenance a day, which is 1lb a weight gain a week, apparently it's the best number to aim for (natty obv.)

I have no science to back this up, but it's been working pretty well for me :bounce:


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

hongman said:


> Yeah I will have a pack of 30 x 20mg on hand. 30mg I've been told is generally OK, 50mg is pretty gyno prone so 40mg being middle ground.
> 
> I have no idea how gyno prone I am and I'm not risking moobs! If I get itchy nips I'll just pop 20mg Nolva alongside Dbol and see how it goes, up it if need be. At 40mg I think I will run 2 week PCT anyway just to be safe.


nolvadex takes 30days at a daily dose to reach peak serum levels. When you have "itch nips" you HAVE gyno... as in to late bud (pun intended).

by the way, here are the problems with a dbol only cycle:

1. 4 hour half life: if you take 40mg inthe morning, at 8am, you have 20mg active by noon, 10mg by 4pm, 5mg by 8pm and 2.5mg by midnight. Plasma levels of 10mg are replacement for natty test levels- so when you are at 10mg of active dbol, you're shutting down your own production, and not doing anything musclarly- 10mg plasma level is meant to be the daily t-repalcement dose (as men produce about 7mg of test daily).

so basically from 4pm onwards, you have no benefit....

If you split the dose... its better.. but then you're best of doing 20mg in the morning, 10mg 4 hours later, and another 10mg 4 hours after that...

Better yet, choose anavar or winstrol that have a 8hour half life; or do dbol in the day, and anavar or winny at night (since you receover/build muscle at night, its most important to have high levels then.

2. all the studies on 18-35yo HEALTHY men, use long cycles (20 weeks) and infact conclude that perhaps the results would be better if run longer:

http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/281/6/E1172.long

also, studies on HIV patients with wasting (Cachexia) running ORALS ONLY run for 30weeks to measure change:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8785183

and most of all, medically speaking orals, like oxys, are stated to be trialled for a MIN of 3-6months- less time is NOT effective; see page 798:

http://www.afboard.com/library/Review%20of%20Oxymetholone.pdf

basically... your problem is just not long enough on to get any permanent change once the water retention from the oestrogen goes...


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Arghhh. So much conflicting advice. I honesty don't know what do.

On this very forum alone iv read about success with dbol only cycles and everything around it, inc use of nolva.

But then someone such as yourself with a wealth of experience and knowledge contradicts that with what sounds like valid science.

What am I to do??


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

hongman said:


> Arghhh. So much conflicting advice. I honesty don't know what do.
> 
> On this very forum alone iv read about success with dbol only cycles and everything around it, inc use of nolva.
> 
> ...


Find out for yourself. It's the only certain way...


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Huntingground said:


> FMJ, I will set up a journal where i eat 6000cals+ a day and you can join in and eat 16 cals above maintenance a day. We can see who gains more until Jan 1st. Whaddya think?


Shut up. You clearly dont understand what the HYPOTHETICAL situation Mike Mentzer was trying to demonstrate. The human body has a fantastic ability to use ONLY what it needs and excrete or store the rest. I didnt fcuking say eat ONLY 16 cals thats a THEORY that still stands. The objective of the THEORY is to make you understand that the body doesnt need and wont use 2000 calories above its expenditure. Can we have some educated responses ffs.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

Mingster said:


> Find out for yourself. It's the only certain way...


this. dont take what 1 person says as 100% correct and experiment a bit.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> Shut up. You clearly dont understand what the HYPOTHETICAL situation Mike Mentzer was trying to demonstrate. The human body has a fantastic ability to use ONLY what it needs and excrete or store the rest. I didnt fcuking say eat ONLY 16 cals thats a THEORY that still stands. The objective of the THEORY is to make you understand that the body doesnt need and wont use 2000 calories above its expenditure. Can we have some educated responses ffs.


read your own responses you sound like a spoilt know it all child.


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

kingdale said:


> read your own responses you sound like a spoilt know it all child.


Dont worry mate his mrs will be home soon and he'll have to jump off the computer before she catches him on here :lol:


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

faultline said:


> Entertaining thread to read
> 
> How about this, a 200lb 10% bf guy who trained for strength against a 200lb 20% bf guy who trained for bodybuilding, the leaner guy would lift more yes?
> 
> ...


Bump


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

My earlier responses were explaining the theory not advocating it. I clearly admit on the first page on this thread that I aim to acheive 200 calories above total expenditure.

And spoiled? I wish.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

faultline said:


> Bump


that doesnt mean that someone skinny would be stronger that means someone who trains for strength would be stronger.


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

Exactly so in theory it doesn't matter how much u weigh or what your bf is, it's down to what you train fir


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

faultline said:


> Bump


I train for strength...

I can lift as much at 245lbs chubby as I can at 245lbs lean. There's power in that thar chub and no mistake.


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

Mingster said:


> I train for strength...
> 
> I can lift as much at 245lbs chubby as I can at 245lbs lean. There's power in that thar chub and no mistake.


This is just what I mean, someone like Ming or ewen because they train for strength they will lift more than someone there weight who only trains for looks, I believe it's down to how you have trained the muscle over the years


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

faultline said:


> Exactly so in theory it doesn't matter how much u weigh or what your bf is, it's down to what you train fir


yes of course it matters how you train but that wasnt what i was saying. Two guys the exacts same everything training routines etc the only difference one is carrying 2 stone of fat the fat guy will lift more.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

faultline said:


> This is just what I mean, someone like Ming or ewen because they train for strength they will lift more than someone there weight who only trains for looks, I believe it's down to how you have trained the muscle over the years


no sh*t sherlock that wasnt a point anyone was trying to make.


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

There's about 8 pages of arguing about who's stronger, a 250lb fat man or a 250lb lean man, there's your answer, the one who trained for strength

I'm not getting into the whole issue of if fat can push weights because I don't know I'm relatively new to lifting weights, I'm sure the strongman on the forum will give an answer


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

kingdale said:


> yes of course it matters how you train but that wasnt what i was saying. Two guys the exacts same everything training routines etc the only difference one is carrying 2 stone of fat the fat guy will lift more.


This is possible, I honestly don't know


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

faultline said:


> There's about 8 pages of arguing about who's stronger, a 250lb fat man or a 250lb lean man, there's your answer, the one who trained for strength
> 
> I'm not getting into the whole issue of if fat can push weights because I don't know I'm relatively new to lifting weights, I'm sure the strongman on the forum will give an answer


i dont think you have understood it.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

faultline said:


> There's about 8 pages of arguing about who's stronger, a 250lb fat man or a 250lb lean man, there's your answer, the one who trained for strength
> 
> I'm not getting into the whole issue of if fat can push weights because I don't know I'm relatively new to lifting weights, I'm sure the strongman on the forum will give an answer


Fat cannot exert force on the environment. People will argue leverages.

Fat untrained man wont necessarilly lift more than a skinny untrained man just as a skinny untrained man will not necessarilly lift more than a fat untrained man.

I have seen very fat people struggle to bench press 40kg... by logic of 'weigh more lift more' he shouldnt have struggled.


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

kingdale said:


> i dont think you have understood it.


This is very possible lol


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

hongman said:


> Arghhh. So much conflicting advice. I honesty don't know what do.
> 
> On this very forum alone iv read about success with dbol only cycles and everything around it, inc use of nolva.
> 
> ...


why run short cycles? liver issues? none at your low dose.

nolva? run it from the start- why? because if you "feel gyno" you have it...

Why do you think there's so many threads on gyno? its because having "nolva at hand" is like saying I phoned up and got the insurance company on the phone... then I'll drive around, and if I have a smash, I 'll then say, "hey yes, I'll pay for that insurance now"... get it? to late!



Mingster said:


> Find out for yourself. It's the only certain way...


yep, even down to the gyno..... just don't start a thread about it....


----------



## anabolik (Aug 19, 2010)

All I know is I'm stronger when I'm carrying more bodyweight (fat). Results and real world experience don't lie.

Not really sure what you're trying to argue here F.M.J? Or maybe you're just arguing for the sake of it...


----------



## faultline (Feb 5, 2010)

anabolik said:


> All I know is I'm stronger when I'm carrying more bodyweight (fat). Results and real world experience don't lie.
> 
> Not really sure what you're trying to argue here F.M.J? Or maybe you're just arguing for the sake of it...


Could this just be that when your fat your obviously bulking so all the extra cals are giving you more energy, therefore stronger, whereas when your lean your on a cut so in a cals deficit therefore less energy and less strength?


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Cheers aus - I promise im not trying to be smart, it's just there's a lot of conflicting advice and as a noob to it all it gets confusing.

In this case I chose 6 weeks because it leaves the amount I want for a kick start on my test cycle - on 250 tabs.

And point taken about the nolva - ill run it from day 1. How many times have I read "have it on hand" and noone has ever questioned it!


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

hongman said:


> Cheers aus - I promise im not trying to be smart, it's just there's a lot of conflicting advice and as a noob to it all it gets confusing.
> 
> In this case I chose 6 weeks because it leaves the amount I want for a kick start on my test cycle - on 250 tabs.
> 
> And point taken about the nolva - ill run it from day 1. How many times have I read "have it on hand" and noone has ever questioned it!


When i mentioned have extra nolva i ment take it from the start btw. I made the mistake of 'having it to hand' and started to get gyno.


----------



## anabolik (Aug 19, 2010)

faultline said:


> Could this just be that when your fat your obviously bulking so all the extra cals are giving you more energy, therefore stronger, whereas when your lean your on a cut so in a cals deficit therefore less energy and less strength?


If that were the case then my full strength would return within days of ending a cut but it doesn't happen like that. It takes many more weeks of bulking and adding weight for the strength to return. It's nothing to do with energy from more food.


----------



## hongman (Sep 26, 2012)

Not you king, from my dbol pct thread. And countless other ones I have read!

Gonna have a think of this. Weigh up my options.


----------



## TAFFY (Jun 3, 2009)

i havent read all posts cant be bothered but i never count my cal,s i eat as much as i feel like somedays i have stupid amount of cal's

next day mite not just top up with shakes,but still get 5-6 solid meals on these days,i never worked out exactly the amounts only when dieting for show,if i feel iam getting little tubby just cut back a little,but i personally feel better and stronger carrying a bit of winter fat:thumb:


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

anabolik said:


> If that were the case then my full strength would return within days of ending a cut but it doesn't happen like that. It takes many more weeks of bulking and adding weight for the strength to return. It's nothing to do with energy from more food.


If you are in a deficit of nutrients even the micro nutrients for several weeks/months during a cut your body will get weaker so it's no surprise that when you put weight back on you consumed more of what your body needs and it got strong again.


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

Lifting- If you weigh more you will lift more.

Lets say an Athlete weighs 100kg he can deadlift 200k then he is lifting 200% of his bw... same Athlete adds 5k bw the 200k deadlift becomes less of a % of his bw...

maybe Im wrong... all I know is when I was 107k at 5.5" I could make a 270k deadlift look like a joke and pull the fvcker for 8 reps and 260k for 9 (well p1ssed I never hit 10 lol). but at 95k I can't hit 270k dead... funny thing is I have more lbm now by far but much leaner and weigh less...

this is just imo and from my own experience not fact.


----------



## anabolik (Aug 19, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> If you are in a deficit of nutrients even the micro nutrients for several weeks/months during a cut your body will get weaker so *it's no surprise that when you put weight back on* you consumed more of what your body needs and *it got strong again*.


Exactly. Weight gain=strength gain. Glad we finally won you round


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

Im not saying the fatter the better but to a degree this is the case imo.

I remember Pounstone saying depending on the show he will gain or drop weight... wsm drop weight as its hard cv but Arnolds gain weight as its all about heavy lifting.

I find having that little extra fat/water helps keep joints nice n supported/strong... imo


----------



## Fatstuff (Mar 2, 2010)

kingdale said:


> yes of course it matters how you train but that wasnt what i was saying. Two guys the exacts same everything training routines etc the only difference one is carrying 2 stone of fat the fat guy will lift more.


depends..... would he squat more? even though hes got an extra 2 stone to squat?


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

F.M.J said:


> Shut up. You clearly dont understand what the HYPOTHETICAL situation Mike Mentzer was trying to demonstrate. The human body has a fantastic ability to use ONLY what it needs and excrete or store the rest. I didnt fcuking say eat ONLY 16 cals thats a THEORY that still stands. The objective of the THEORY is to make you understand that the body doesnt need and wont use 2000 calories above its expenditure. Can we have some educated responses ffs.


Pencil Neck, who are you telling to shut up?

My offer stands. Journal or you STFU.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

Fatstuff said:


> depends..... would he squat more? even though hes got an extra 2 stone to squat?


I would have thought so. Who holds the squat record? im have no idea but i bet he is carrying some fat.


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

Huntingground said:


> Pencil Neck, who are you telling to shut up?
> 
> My offer stands. Journal or you STFU.


Come talk to me when you develop some maturity.

Pencil neck, lol are you 15?


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

Well lets be honest HuntingGround is one of the biggest and leanest and knows his stuff so yeh he can call you and most people (including myself pencil neck) lool


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Haahaa, what a reply. From the little boy telling me to shut up whilst debating bodybuilding theories.

Offer stands. I will test my theory against yours. I always state that theories need empirical testing and I have offered this. I fully expect you to not take up this offer. Actually I would be very surprised if you did.

I will eat 6000+ cals and take gear. You can eat maintenance +16 cals. Lets see who grows the most.

Odds are 1/10000000 that I grow/increase lifts more than you


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Barman said:


> Well lets be honest HuntingGround is one of the biggest and leanest and knows his stuff so yeh he can call you and most people (including myself pencil neck) lool


Haahaa, not too sure if you're serious. I am certainly not lean mate. I now weigh 282lbs, avi pic was after cut last year. I am now bigger but fatter


----------



## jon-kent (May 20, 2011)

Huntingground said:


> Haahaa, not too sure if you're serious. I am certainly not lean mate. I now weigh 282lbs, avi pic was after cut last year. I am now bigger but fatter


So your stronger now :wink:


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

Huntingground said:


> Haahaa, not too sure if you're serious. I am certainly not lean mate. I now weigh 282lbs, avi pic was after cut last year. I am now bigger but fatter


Ha well ur bigger than me ha trying to get up to 220-230 atm then cut the hell up im only a little 202pounder at 5"6 lol hhhhmmmm food


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

jon-kent said:


> So your stronger now :wink:


Certainly am Jon, lifts are defo up.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Barman said:


> Ha well ur bigger than me ha trying to get up to 220-230 atm then cut the hell up im only a little 202pounder at 5"6 lol hhhhmmmm food


Impressive at 5'6" mate. Get a journal up. I'm going to start one for my cut and then the rebound.


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

Huntingground said:


> Impressive at 5'6" mate. Get a journal up. I'm going to start one for my cut and then the rebound.


Thanks im not lean doe lol ah im not one for journals tbh like looking that thm but thats it ha


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

****sed that I missed all of this thread. My only comment is that I'm about 11.5 stone and I lift more than most people that weigh 13.. *leaves thread*


----------



## F.M.J (Mar 23, 2009)

The hypothetical situation was by a much more successful and famous bodybuilder than you ever will be, it was applied hypothetically to a bodybuilding ideology. I said numerous times in this thread that +16 calories would be impossible to maintain and nor me or Mike Mentzer advocate trying to only get +16 calories. I never once said you should only get +16 calories so I don't understand what your problem is. Either way, I don't care enough to argue with you or anyone in his thread about this topic anymore.

Try reading more thoroughly next time. I really don't have time for your games, even less for your arrogance.

Good day, good night, good life and good luck in your endeavours. This ignore function has come in very handy recently.


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

L11 said:


> ****sed that I missed all of this thread. My only comment is that I'm about 11.5 stone and I lift more than most people that weigh 13.. *leaves thread*


how tall are you? you look big for your weight.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Hissy fit 

Of course Mentzer is a more successful BBer than me as I am not a BBer. I train for strength so your argument is flawed like the rest of the "theory" which you have spewed forth.

You are an arrogant, petty, young man, the first outburst telling me to shut up and then the above little rant/hissy fit. Have you checked your Estrogen levels recently 

As predicted, the journal offer was turned down just before you scurried off from this thread............


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

kingdale said:


> how tall are you? you look big for your weight.


yeh i was thinking the same unless he has no legs??  lol joke joke


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

kingdale said:


> how tall are you? you look big for your weight.


5" 7 aka short as f*ck


----------



## kingdale (Nov 2, 2010)

L11 said:


> 5" 7 aka short as f*ck


I expected you to be shorter, you dont look 11 and a half stone at all.


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

kingdale said:


> I expected you to be shorter, you dont look 11 and a half stone at all.


Yea people normally guess that I'm heavier, which I suppose I take as a compliment...


----------



## Dazza (Aug 7, 2010)

Haven't read most of the replies.

But i am currently on my first proper bulk cycle, and have been playing with macro's.

And i've noticed one glaringly obvious thing.

You really do need to eat big to get big.

Honestly, i was just above maintenance to begin with and not a lot was happening.

Soon as i bumped up my intake, and i mean really bumped it then i started growing, real fast and strength came as well.

Ok there's been some fat gain, but give me muscle any day, i can worry about dieting in the new year like everyone else does.


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

Dazzza said:


> Haven't read most of the replies.
> 
> But i am currently on my first proper bulk cycle, and have been playing with macro's.
> 
> ...


Dam right bro alot of guys say the same thing whats the point in being lean all year round only gaining a couple of pounds when if you eat you will gain more ive done both ways and i rather eat more not because im a greedy **** but it works


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

Barman said:


> Dam right bro alot of guys say the same thing whats the point in being lean all year round only gaining a couple of pounds when if you eat you will gain more ive done both ways and i rather eat more not because im a greedy **** but it works


But then surely you have to eat less when you cut so you you're less happy then?

I know next summer I'll never have to do less than 2300 calories on a cut because I wont have put on that much fat. (in contrast I cut at 1800 calories this summer)


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

L11 said:


> But then surely you have to eat less when you cut so you you're less happy then?
> 
> I know next summer I'll never have to do less than 2300 calories on a cut because I wont have put on that much fat. (in contrast I cut at 1800 calories this summer)


it depends diffrent for each person dont mind cutting dont get mood swings or anything like that just hungry lol


----------



## Pyro (Dec 23, 2011)

I don't no why you find it so hard to believe carry some fat makes you stronger. Ask any strongman or powerlifter and they will tell you it's true. The people saying they no skinny people who are strong and fat people are week doesnt meant **** there two different people take the skinny guy and put a stone of fat on him and he will lift more.


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

Dazzza said:


> But i am currently on my first proper bulk cycle, and have been playing with macro's.
> 
> And i've noticed one glaringly obvious thing.
> 
> ...


exactly.... while I may be on a shed load of gear, I'm on a shed load of food... and its not f**king chicken and rice... its burgers & fries... I'm on 6000cal (min)/day....

and.... I've BARELY managed 2.5kg in the past 4 weeks.... need to up my cals more... I've resorted to eating hommous, peanut butter etc..


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

ausbuilt said:


> exactly.... while I may be on a shed load of gear, I'm on a shed load of food... and its not f**king chicken and rice... its burgers & fries... I'm on 6000cal (min)/day....


Aus,

Have you tried the "eat 16 cals more than maintenance diet"?? I've been told it makes you into Dorian.


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

Id say it was simple...

No matter what any one says more is better... in every sense...

more training, more food, more sups, more rest means more gains...

In my personal experience I have found 4-500g pro 700-1,000g carbs and minimal fat the best way to make relatively lean gains...

yea I blow up and look like a fatty but its all water... I did this before my last prep and after a week of diff sups and lower carbs i was prob 10-11%... full abs etc

ppl mistake water and gut bloat for fat...

if the food is pretty clean and you have a good metabolism train right etc you shouldn't get very fat...

I was hitting about 7k cals a day.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Benni looks small doesn't he


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

How much tren. Cannot speak/breathe.


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

Huntingground said:


> How much tren. Cannot speak/breathe.


I've jsut hit 2g of tren (1g test as well,) and I breathe fine... its 2:14am, I can't sleep... but breathing is fine.. :lol:

not counting the BSI mtren+dbol+test susp pre workout (2-3ml workout days, 1ml on non, just, becuase I love the $hit.)


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

2g Tren, impressive Aus, I've never gone above 1g Tren En with 3*1ml of Supertren a week.

I have issues with breathing though, maybe need to cut as I weighed in at 283lbs last night and not lean.

2g is tempting though as I have PBs to hit before year end = 280 DL, 240 SQ and 160 BP = Total of 680KG. That is the plan. I may add in 90iu slow slin a day to help.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

ausbuilt said:


> I've jsut hit 2g of tren (1g test as well,) and I breathe fine... its 2:14am, I can't sleep... but breathing is fine.. :lol:
> 
> not counting the BSI mtren+dbol+test susp pre workout (2-3ml workout days, 1ml on non, just, becuase I love the $hit.)


3ml - that's a lot isn't it? I only use 1ml of PC Supertren. I am ordering some of the BSI gear though as we speak.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Not being able to breathe is the only real side I get from tren. It's not very nice tbh...


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Mingster said:


> Not being able to breathe is the only real side I get from tren. It's not very nice tbh...


Hi Mingster, same as me although do get some night sweats too. Breathing is awful at the moment, sound like a 100yo asthmatic 

Only 5 weeks to go though!! Then cut time.

Any thoughts on the thread. Eating just above maintenance etc. I always value your opinions.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

The level of pure broscience in this thread is amazing.

So many people stating things as if they are actual facts when they are total **** gravey.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Huntingground said:


> Hi Mingster, same as me although do get some night sweats too. Breathing is awful at the moment, sound like a 100yo asthmatic
> 
> Only 5 weeks to go though!! Then cut time.
> 
> Any thoughts on the thread. Eating just above maintenance etc. I always value your opinions.


I always eat big lol. Much stronger when heavier. I'm like Aus, I find it difficult to put on weight. I can't do it eating 'clean' all the time. I add burgers, ice cream, pizza, the works just not all the time. Pre workout chocky bars help too I cut out the chocky bars when dieting but keep the majority of the other stuff...


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

its a well known fact that eating greggs pasties gets you hench .


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

ewen said:


> its a well known fact that eating greggs pasties gets you hench .


I'm taking the dog out for it's cardio in a minute. If there's any Cornish pasties left at the shop when I get back I'll have to have some now


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

MattGriff said:


> The level of pure broscience in this thread is amazing.
> 
> So many people stating things as if they are actual facts when they are total **** gravey.


Hey Matt, please let us know your thoughts. Would be interested.


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

Huntingground said:


> Hey Matt, please let us know your thoughts. Would be interested.


There are countless variables in a subject like this, the fact most haven't taken them into account and just focus on one aspect should tell you exactly how much they actually know about the topic.

I find it largely pointless discussing to be honest


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

Mingster said:


> I always eat big lol. Much stronger when heavier. I'm like Aus, I find it difficult to put on weight. I can't do it eating 'clean' all the time. I add burgers, ice cream, pizza, the works just not all the time. Pre workout chocky bars help too I cut out the chocky bars when dieting but keep the majority of the other stuff...


I don't think I was always like this, but certainly as I've gotten bigger, clean cals just don't cut it.... I thought I'd blow out like the michelin man, but apart from some water retention (that's from change from AI to nolva)... i'm as lean as usual.... I used to not believe when the pros said they ate anything and everything in the off season, but now I can see, that if you're shooting to get really big, its impossible on clean cals (even eating burgers/fries/pies etc.. you get really full!!)



ewen said:


> its a well known fact that eating greggs pasties gets you hench .


pfft... what with using the BSI pre-workout waters etc, then the 'slin, I really thought you knew what it was all about..... but then you whip out Greggs pasties...... SERIOUSLY @ewen, I'm from Oz, and EVEN I know its CORNISH pasties to get hench... that's free advice, coz we're mates :lol:


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

ewen said:


> its a well known fact that eating greggs pasties gets you hench .


thats your yorkshire side showing its head, question is cheese and onion or veggie pasty, iced finger baby


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

ausbuilt said:


> I don't think I was always like this, but certainly as I've gotten bigger, clean cals just don't cut it.... I thought I'd blow out like the michelin man, but apart from some water retention (that's from change from AI to nolva)... i'm as lean as usual.... I used to not believe when the pros said they ate anything and everything in the off season, but now I can see, that if you're shooting to get really big, its impossible on clean cals (even eating burgers/fries/pies etc.. you get really full!!)
> 
> pfft... what with using the BSI pre-workout waters etc, then the 'slin, I really thought you knew what it was all about..... but then you whip out Greggs pasties...... SERIOUSLY @ewen, I'm from Oz, and EVEN I know its CORNISH pasties to get hench... that's free advice, coz we're mates :lol:


ah but did you know only a pastie made in the cornish county with the ridge of pastry down the middle is the only pastie that can lay genuine claim to the name cornish pastie 

all others are just imitation


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

zack amin said:


> thats your yorkshire side showing its head, question is cheese and onion or veggie pasty, iced finger baby


cheese and onion with chips and beans now that is food orgasm .


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

ewen said:


> cheese and onion with chips and beans now that is food orgasm .


thats my fave food from local bakery, chips cheese and beans and cheese an onion pie, fcukin beauty


----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

Mingster said:


> I'm taking the dog out for it's cardio in a minute. If there's any Cornish pasties left at the shop when I get back I'll have to have some now


i`d suggest you slay at least two ming , show the cnuts how merciless you are


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

ewen said:


> i`d suggest you slay at least two ming , show the cnuts how merciless you are


Just back from walking the dog and no bloody Cornish pasties left:cursing: It's always the same as they are very nice lol. Had to make do with two mince pies instead


----------



## big_jim_87 (Jul 9, 2009)

Huntingground said:


> 2g Tren, impressive Aus, I've never gone above 1g Tren En with 3*1ml of Supertren a week.
> 
> I have issues with breathing though, maybe need to cut as I weighed in at 283lbs last night and not lean.
> 
> 2g is tempting though as I have PBs to hit before year end = 280 DL, 240 SQ and 160 BP = Total of 680KG. That is the plan. I may add in 90iu slow slin a day to help.


have you ever tried slow/fast combo? from what I hear its quite good...

say 40iu lev am and 5-10iu novo meals 1-5... I know guys who rate this method highly... not me tho Im natty


----------



## ausbuilt (Nov 22, 2010)

big_jim_87 said:


> have you ever tried slow/fast combo? from what I hear its quite good...
> 
> say 40iu lev am and 5-10iu novo meals 1-5... I know guys who rate this method highly... not me tho Im natty


x2

30-50iu lantus in the morning, then 1iu/10kg novo with 2x meals, and 1x post workout....

will prob do this post comp next year.. if I take 4 weeks of work.... that's a shed load of eating....


----------



## Dazza (Aug 7, 2010)

ewen said:


> ah but did you know only a pastie made in the cornish county with the ridge of pastry down the middle is the only pastie that can lay genuine claim to the name cornish pastie
> 
> all others are just imitation


You're opening a big can of worms there, that little debate has kicked off so many arguments down this way.

And yes im 100% cornish, so by my reckoning time i'll hit the test next year i should be fcuking massive!!

Or at least my bulk will be well set with all the pastie shops down here 

But anyway for now it's fish fingers, cos i iz still a minnow, least for now......


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

This is my fav tread on here atm lol im on 2ml of sus 350 a week with an extra 2ml of prop 900gs of test and today im upping my dbol from 50mgs to 75 mgs on 50mcg of T3 a day also so im happy ha i put size on easy enough doe upping my training as well trying to hit each muscle twice a week starting this week as well id say id be upping my kcals to 4000 a day very soon by the looks of things ha will keep it on the same for a week see how i get on.


----------



## reza85 (Jan 11, 2009)

MattGriff said:


> There are countless variables in a subject like this, the fact most haven't taken them into account and just focus on one aspect should tell you exactly how much they actually know about the topic.
> 
> I find it largely pointless discussing to be honest


Thanks for your input it cleared thing up


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Barman said:


> This is my fav tread on here atm lol im on 2ml of sus 350 a week with an extra 2ml of prop 900gs of test and today im upping my dbol from 50mgs to 75 mgs on 50mcg of T3 a day also so im happy ha i put size on easy enough doe upping my training as well trying to hit each muscle twice a week starting this week as well id say id be upping my kcals to 4000 a day very soon by the looks of things ha will keep it on the same for a week see how i get on.


Dosages are fine. See how body responds to the extra workload. I actually function better on low volume, heavy weight.


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

Huntingground said:


> Dosages are fine. See how body responds to the extra workload. I actually function better on low volume, heavy weight.


Yeh mate thats what im doing should be ok if not cut down a bit. im the opposite i grow better with lighter weights lots of sets lol but my chest is the only thing i have to go heavyish to get good results 5x5 on bench 8 reps with flys and dumbell press 6-8 but with the dumbell press i do alot extra sets with a light weight to finish it off seems to be working for me so im happy.  Do you compete HuntingGround??


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Barman said:


> Yeh mate thats what im doing should be ok if not cut down a bit. im the opposite i grow better with lighter weights lots of sets lol but my chest is the only thing i have to go heavyish to get good results 5x5 on bench 8 reps with flys and dumbell press 6-8 but with the dumbell press i do alot extra sets with a light weight to finish it off seems to be working for me so im happy.  Do you compete HuntingGround??


Planning on doing a PL event in 2013. I will start a journal pretty soon mate.


----------



## Barman (Feb 29, 2012)

Huntingground said:


> Planning on doing a PL event in 2013. I will start a journal pretty soon mate.


Nice!  good luck bro send me a link to it when you get it up am intrested very much so


----------



## MattGriff (Aug 21, 2012)

reza85 said:


> Thanks for your input it cleared thing up


I do this for a living, can't give it all away for free with so many internet scientists around :whistling:


----------



## reza85 (Jan 11, 2009)

MattGriff said:


> I do this for a living, can't give it all away for free with so many internet scientists around :whistling:


Oh in that case mate that is more then fair enough :thumb:


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

F.M.J said:


> If macros are the same, how are the calories different? Doesn't make sense.
> 
> If you ate 3000 calories over maintenance you would get fat quickly.
> 
> ...


I missed this thread first time around.Thank god, someone else, can do simple math.


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Simple game this.

Eat loads.

Jab loads.

Lift loads.

Done.


----------



## reza85 (Jan 11, 2009)

Huntingground said:


> Simple game this.
> 
> Eat loads.
> 
> ...


X2


----------

