'Full House' ???

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Note to readers: I’m not saying that gaining is harder than losing for everyone. I’m not smart enough to know the bro science required to stand behind that statement. Just speaking for me.[/quote]
lol

[quote]spar4tee wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
here they are now grown up:

[/quote]
do you ever press them?[/quote]

no. but i do let them pull me on a bike for a few miles a day. MUSH!

[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
I don’t understand how one could make the case that you eat a certain amount of caloric surplus, all of which (or the vast majority of which) must go towards growth, then the rest goes to fat…

It seems more logical that of any given caloric surplus, some percentage goes towards fat and some towards muscle. Of course, I would imagine that the surplus is purely fat after you get to the point of consumption that fully fuels the amount of muscle that the body can synthesize in a given period. But the idea that the body preferentially synthesizes muscle instead of adding some fat as well just doesn’t gel…

What am I missing?[/quote]

1 - First off, do keep in mind that logic isn’t foolproof in this arena. Of course, ‘kcals in/out’ is an excellent logical starting point, yet also way too many examples of “logic does not apply” when discussing the dynamic, adaptable human body.

2 - As zraw mentioned, everything changes in response to training stimulus. Granted, we’re talking STRICTLY fast-twitch, anaerobic-type training (heavy lifts, sprints, jumps) which imposes incredible demands on the body resulting in both forced adaptation AND improved hormonal status. (note that this is why the “endless cardio” approach cannot work, as it fails on both those latter points)

If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.

[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]

Former.

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I don’t disagree with you. For me, personally, I think the gain phase is physically harder. Early on, I used to sit here with slab of meat in front of me[/quote]

this reminds me of a thread you had years ago called something like La Cucina Italiano Anabolica. It was fucking amazing! I wish you’d do something like that again[/quote]

HAAA!! It’s still there :wink:

You’d be surprised how much time it takes to crop and upload all those pics. I just don’t have time to post those meals anymore!

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I guess I don’t understand what the fascination is with the “full house” look. Would you rather be big, muscular and lean… or BIGGER, muscular and fat? I will choose the former every time. It’s one thing to say getting big, muscular and fat is beneficial to help you acheive the big and lean physique one day, but to look at “full house” as an end goal, in a bbing forum, I just dont get.

Please help me. [/quote]

Fixed.

By BBing standards, lean is probably < 5% bf and fat is anything over that…nobody going for the full house look really plans on being obese, but nor do they care if they sit at a higher bf%. IMO 15% isn’t that unreasonable but by BBing standards it is likely to be considered fat.[/quote]

You have it wrong. No one sits at 4 to 6% bodyfat for more than a few days and most bodybuilders are 10 to 15% and in some cases more in the offseason. Someone would really have to be off their rocker to think that anything greater than 5% is fat!

Is 10 to 15% fat for competition? Yes. For an offseason? Heck no! Also, that’s the bodyfat of most athletes in most sports.

[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]

5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I guess I don’t understand what the fascination is with the “full house” look. Would you rather be big, muscular and lean… or BIGGER, muscular and fat? I will choose the former every time. It’s one thing to say getting big, muscular and fat is beneficial to help you acheive the big and lean physique one day, but to look at “full house” as an end goal, in a bbing forum, I just dont get.

Please help me. [/quote]

Fixed.

By BBing standards, lean is probably < 5% bf and fat is anything over that…nobody going for the full house look really plans on being obese, but nor do they care if they sit at a higher bf%. IMO 15% isn’t that unreasonable but by BBing standards it is likely to be considered fat.[/quote]

You have it wrong. No one sits at 4 to 6% bodyfat for more than a few days and most bodybuilders are 10 to 15% and in some cases more in the offseason. Someone would really have to be off their rocker to think that anything greater than 5% is fat!

Is 10 to 15% fat for competition? Yes. For an offseason? Heck no! Also, that’s the bodyfat of most athletes in most sports. [/quote]

Exactly. The people shown as full house are well over 15% bf. More like 20%+. 5% bf is absolutley shredded, and I certainly wouldn’t call >5% fat. Lean is 10-12% or thereabouts. I wouldn’t consider 15%bf fat.

[quote]TBItruck89 wrote:
Hafthor Bjornsson has the perfect ‘full house’ look IMO.

[/quote]

lol your kidding me right?

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]

5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]

C’mon, now… We’ve already addressed that either approach lifters take doesn’t always align with ‘a healthier self’. The work and diet it would take to stay at 8% would make all that other stuff you listed tedious at best because of low energy levels and fear of ‘going catabolic’. One would be too irritable to enjoy any of it anyway :wink:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]

5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]
You are under several different delusions if you think there aren’t guys in the upper 200’s and higher who can’t “locomote faster than a walk” or who can’t run, climb and swim or play sports or who don’t have very healthy insides. And the biggest delusion of all is thinking you could defend yourself against one of them as a 175 pound twink.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]

5’10", 175 pounds, 8% bodyfat. Although it can’t be definite, at least I’d be in good enough shape to reduce the risk of hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and heart disease. I’d also be in better shape to be able to locomote faster than a walk, run, climb, or swim if need be, pick up some games here and there, and be better able to defend myself if need be. [/quote]

On the subject of self defense, I actually had that question for myself for a while. Before I started powerlifting, I actually fought, with a lot of time spent in martial arts along with some boxing. I used lifting to supplement my fighting. Eventually, I got bit by the iron bug, and had to choose between lifting and fighting. When it came to self defense, it boiled down to the thought that I could either be a smaller guy who knows how to fight when the time comes, or I could just be so big that it serves as a visual deterrent and I don’t need to fight in the first place.

It’s not like I can get in the head of a predator, but I would imagine they would pick “soft targets”.

Although either way, I haven’t been in a non-sport fight since elementary school, so it doesn’t matter, haha.

[quote]E901 wrote:
If you had to pick one to live with for the rest of your life, would it be the full house look (like the pic PX posted earlier) or lean but much smaller- say around 5’10" 175 pounds 8% bodyfat.[/quote]

So long as health is assumed tip top for both, I’d pick full house all day.


Zraw in an ideal ‘Full House’ mode IMO. Still no where near out of shape.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

In between months 1 and 12 if I am seeing more strength in the gym and my arms are growing, and I choose not to diet down because of it, that may lead me to carrying more body fat than “ideal” that can be dieted off later.

AT NO POINT IN TIME WAS THE THOUGHT THAT CARRYING MORE FAT CAUSES MORE GROWTH.[/quote]

You’re not saying it causes more growth, but you’re implying that carrying that fat is necessary for growth.
[/quote]

That isn’t implied at all in that statement.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

In between months 1 and 12 if I am seeing more strength in the gym and my arms are growing, and I choose not to diet down because of it, that may lead me to carrying more body fat than “ideal” that can be dieted off later.

AT NO POINT IN TIME WAS THE THOUGHT THAT CARRYING MORE FAT CAUSES MORE GROWTH.[/quote]

You’re not saying it causes more growth, but you’re implying that carrying that fat is necessary for growth.
[/quote]

Personally, I’ve never read that implication into PX’s posts. I don’t ever think I’ve read that fat is “necessary” for growth, but in some people, it goes hand in hand. Obviously, the goal (in bodybuilding or physique-minded folks) is to minimize that ratio of fat to muscle gain.

For some people, it’s a fact of life that adding some fat goes with adding weight to the bar if ones goal is to add weight to the bar as quickly as possible.

I’ve always understood a component of time implied in PX’s posts about dealing with fat when gaining. If your ‘rate of gains’ goal isn’t really time oriented, then, sure, take years to add to the bar or grow your arms as leanly (is that a real adverb?) as possible.
[/quote]

Exactly. Good post.

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Even Charles Poliquin, has some alright things to say:

Poliquin:
" Believing the bulking-up nonsense
In the so-called Golden Age of Bodybuilding where bodybuilders were known by their first names (e.g., Arnold, Louie and Sergio), bulking up in the off-season and then cutting up was standard practice. Besides the obvious health problems associated with adding excess fat, bulking up is a really bad approach to trying to achieve your physique or athletic fitness goals. Here are six reasons why:

ANTI-BULKING FACT #1. Bulking-up diet programs won?t produce any more muscle growth than ingesting an ideal amount of nutrients. Sorry, but it?s simply not possible to force additional muscle growth by overfeeding.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #2. Bulking up develops insulin resistance, which makes it harder in the long run to gain muscle. What happens when you bulk up is that carbohydrates will go preferentially to fat stores, not to muscle tissue.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #3. Bulking up will make it harder for you to get leaner because insulin resistance is hard to reverse. The fatter you get, the harder it becomes to get lean. Female bodybuilders learn this fact quickly, as it is considerably harder for women to reach the low body-fat levels required for competition.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #4. The fatter you get, the more aromatase enzyme your body will produce. In the extreme, getting fat could be considered a form of self-castration, as your own testosterone will be converted into the female hormone estrogen and you will suffer many unwanted side effects. If you?re a man and you enjoy wearing a bra, go right ahead and get fatter.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #5. Getting fatter will ramp down the effectiveness of your thyroid hormone production ? not a good thing, because thyroid production is essential for fat loss. The fatter your abdominal wall becomes, the less conversion there will be of T4 to T3, the metabolically active form of thyroid.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #6. The lower your percentage of body fat, the better your body becomes at nutrient partitioning. This means individuals with low body fat are more effective at storing the ingested nutrients in the muscle (as muscle tissue or glycogen) or in the liver (as glycogen) and less effective at storing nutrients as body fat. To put it in simpler terms, leaner individuals can eat more nutrients without gaining fat.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #7. The idea that ?a calorie is a calorie? is a bunch of bunk. Calories from sweet potatoes are great for building muscle; calories from beer are not. For that matter, getting fat increases the risk of dying from any cause, even terrorist attacks. I?m serious ? you?re a bigger target and you can?t get out of danger as fast.‘’[/quote]

the first quote is accurate, but the problem with it is… how do you know what is the “ideal amount”. It’s very hard figuring that out and I’d be more worried about under-eating than over-eating. If you over-eat you just get some bodyfat, if you under-eat you just wasted your time in the gym and your off days as well (which for me is 4 days total). If you’re talking about someone eating 10000 calories when they can get on 5000, yeah I’d agree with that. But if you gain at 4k, I’d probably go slightly above that number & recomp later.

Bulking causes insulin resistance? lol
Abdominal obesity is correlated with insulin resistance. When you’re studying a population that got fat from eating processed carbs and junk food… I don’t really know how you are going to say that bodyfat causes insulin resistance when you are studying those people and drawing correlations between the two.

Also if you look at CR/IF studies you will see that total calories do not relate to insulin resistance, timing & exposure to carbs do. My guess is repeated exposure to carbs cause it, and if you do not give your body breaks from carbs your body becomes resistant.[/quote]

Good post.

[quote]The3Commandments wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’ve personally been saying that 1st point for years. It sounds like common sense (you can only fill a cup until it’s full, after that it just spills over = you can just address your nutrient needs in building muscle, after that it just spills over), but I know we will always find lifters who adamantly believes they’re the exception.

S[/quote]

Maybe someone can help me get my head around this (fyi, I have essentially no formal education in this stuff–law student).

I don’t see how that analogy really fits. Let’s say that my BMR is 3000 calories for a given day. Let’s say that I eat 4000 calories, for a surplus of 1000 (presumably too much). I don’t see how it is the case that the first, say, 3200 calories go towards recovery from calorie expenditure and then building muscle, then all the rest goes to fat.

I don’t understand how one could make the case that you eat a certain amount of caloric surplus, all of which (or the vast majority of which) must go towards growth, then the rest goes to fat…

It seems more logical that of any given caloric surplus, some percentage goes towards fat and some towards muscle. Of course, I would imagine that the surplus is purely fat after you get to the point of consumption that fully fuels the amount of muscle that the body can synthesize in a given period. But the idea that the body preferentially synthesizes muscle instead of adding some fat as well just doesn’t gel…

What am I missing?[/quote]

Nothing.