How Long to Stay at Weight After Bulk?

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Oh yes, there are people bigger than me who disagree with me. There are also people more built than I who don’t know their assess from their elbows and can’t explain much on training or nutrition to anyone and have succeeded on the goofiest of routines. [/quote]

Yep.

Just proves that all the highschool meangirl princessism, broscience, and PubMed abstract quoting on these boards amounts to nothing more than almost entertaining reading and wasted bandwidth.

Signed,
Ch33z3burgrz 4evar[/quote]

This is also why what StormtheBeach said is true in regarding academic schooling has little to do with lifting and sports nutrition. [/quote]

Que?

Look, if your doctor looks like they never touched a weight, don’t assume they know about bodybuilding or weight lifting…HOWEVER, if your doc walks into the office with 20" arms or bigger and trains daily, my guess is, he may be one of the best fucking people to listen to.

This statement made sense 20 years ago. Many docs lift today. You just have to find them.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Oh yes, there are people bigger than me who disagree with me. There are also people more built than I who don’t know their assess from their elbows and can’t explain much on training or nutrition to anyone and have succeeded on the goofiest of routines. [/quote]

Yep.

Just proves that all the highschool meangirl princessism, broscience, and PubMed abstract quoting on these boards amounts to nothing more than almost entertaining reading and wasted bandwidth.

Signed,
Ch33z3burgrz 4evar[/quote]

This is also why what StormtheBeach said is true in regarding academic schooling has little to do with lifting and sports nutrition. [/quote]

All I mean by that is everyone is different and you do what you need to do based on your goals and level of comfort with respect to physique.

Lot of big, strong dudes in the gym who have no desire to compete in bodybuilding or be shredded. Personally, I fall into the ‘wanna be big, lift heavy, and don’t give a rat fuck about bitchez’.

I realize this is the “Bodybuilding Forum”, so maybe the standards are different than “Just Wanna Lift Really Heavy Shit and Be Big for the Sake of Being Big Because I Enjoy the Full House Look and the Lifestyle Forum”

My goal is to both be big and do bench meets. I don’t care if I carry some fat. Abs don’t help my bench. If I’m ostracized on Tiara Nation, so be it.

I like being a big dude. My wife likes me being a big dude. I’m 20 lbs from better abs (read 2 months). I like being a presence in the room (especially for future when my girls start bringing boys home). I don’t want to diet down to 170 Xtra-Medium. Nothing wrong with that, just not for me at this time.

You know what’s great about being “Over 35”, married, big, and comfortable with yourself? You don’t give a fuck what bitch princessez think.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Oh yes, there are people bigger than me who disagree with me. There are also people more built than I who don’t know their assess from their elbows and can’t explain much on training or nutrition to anyone and have succeeded on the goofiest of routines. [/quote]

Yep.

Just proves that all the highschool meangirl princessism, broscience, and PubMed abstract quoting on these boards amounts to nothing more than almost entertaining reading and wasted bandwidth.

Signed,
Ch33z3burgrz 4evar[/quote]

This is also why what StormtheBeach said is true in regarding academic schooling has little to do with lifting and sports nutrition. [/quote]

All I mean by that is everyone is different and you do what you need to do based on your goals and level of comfort with respect to physique.

Lot of big, strong dudes in the gym who have no desire to compete in bodybuilding or be shredded. Personally, I fall into the ‘wanna be big, lift heavy, and don’t give a rat fuck about bitchez’.

I realize this is the “Bodybuilding Forum”, so maybe the standards are different than “Just Wanna Lift Really Heavy Shit and Be Big for the Sake of Being Big Because I Enjoy the Full House Look and the Lifestyle Forum”

My goal is to both be big and do bench meets. I don’t care if I carry some fat. Abs don’t help my bench. If I’m ostracized on Tiara Nation, so be it.

I like being a big dude. My wife likes me being a big dude. I’m 20 lbs from better abs (read 2 months). I like being a presence in the room (especially for future when my girls start bringing boys home). I don’t want to diet down to 170 Xtra-Medium. Nothing wrong with that, just not for me at this time.

You know what’s great about being “Over 35”, married, big, and comfortable with yourself? You don’t give a fuck what bitch princessez think.

[/quote]

Yet there seems to be some tidal wave of smaller dudes on this site lately acting like everyone should try to look like a cast member on Jersey Shore.

My goal was to be really muscular and really strong. I don’t see ANYONE else crying about how fat I am but the same people on this web site.

I have a career. getting on a stage for a plastic trophy and no pay isn’t number one on my list of things to accomplish.

I personally think gaining more lean body mass than most people talking shit is enough.

Casey Butt is not the end of discussion on bodybuilding…neither is Stu…neither is zraw…neither is Brick and neither am i.

The fucked up attitude on this board will only make sure that only the voice of a few wil;l ever be heard lately…when the truth is, most of the biggest dudes on the planet trained just like bluecollartrain wrote and what I wrote.

The insults aren’t even needed. I’m not obese…and no one in real life is calling me as such.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Oh yes, there are people bigger than me who disagree with me. There are also people more built than I who don’t know their assess from their elbows and can’t explain much on training or nutrition to anyone and have succeeded on the goofiest of routines. [/quote]

Yep.

Just proves that all the highschool meangirl princessism, broscience, and PubMed abstract quoting on these boards amounts to nothing more than almost entertaining reading and wasted bandwidth.

Signed,
Ch33z3burgrz 4evar[/quote]

This is also why what StormtheBeach said is true in regarding academic schooling has little to do with lifting and sports nutrition. [/quote]

All I mean by that is everyone is different and you do what you need to do based on your goals and level of comfort with respect to physique.

Lot of big, strong dudes in the gym who have no desire to compete in bodybuilding or be shredded. Personally, I fall into the ‘wanna be big, lift heavy, and don’t give a rat fuck about bitchez’.

I realize this is the “Bodybuilding Forum”, so maybe the standards are different than “Just Wanna Lift Really Heavy Shit and Be Big for the Sake of Being Big Because I Enjoy the Full House Look and the Lifestyle Forum”

My goal is to both be big and do bench meets. I don’t care if I carry some fat. Abs don’t help my bench. If I’m ostracized on Tiara Nation, so be it.

I like being a big dude. My wife likes me being a big dude. I’m 20 lbs from better abs (read 2 months). I like being a presence in the room (especially for future when my girls start bringing boys home). I don’t want to diet down to 170 Xtra-Medium. Nothing wrong with that, just not for me at this time.

You know what’s great about being “Over 35”, married, big, and comfortable with yourself? You don’t give a fuck what bitch princessez think.

[/quote]

Great post.

And you’re right: no one should mind what others say about competitive bodybuilding standards or going for a sleaker look if the “full house” look is what they want.

When people discuss the uppermost amount of LBM people have carried at specific bodyfat percentages, they’re not saying to people they shouldn’t do with their bodies what the please.

If you like eating and putting up big benches, do it! The top benchers of all time were and are VERY large men: Kennelly, Chabot, Mendelson, Arcidi, Tokarski, Clark, et. al.

Let’s leave the petty shit aside for a moment, ok?

The original post pertained to the idea of set-point theory. I think X believes that we should attempt to increase set-points (or better settling points for those who know a bit) by keeping a certain higher bw before entering any cutting phase, in order that the body doesn’t cannibalize the hard-earned muscles.

I have three criticisms regarding X’s position:

(1) It seems that his case is built primarily on his personal experience (n=1). Weak evidence.

(2) Most of his evidence can be explained by simpler factors than the set-point theory. See his “missing-a-meal-losing-5lbs” example.

(3) From what I understand, the set point idea “basically says that the body will attempt to defend some body weight (or body fat) level (or perhaps range) by adjusting things such as metabolic rate, activity, hunger, etc. in response to changes in weight or fat.” In other words, the body might “fight” against reducing body FAT. Nowhere does it say that the body cannibalizes muscles to maintain/achieve some set point as X argues. It seems that he came up with it.

My conclusion: it seems that if we believe in set point theory (or better settling point theory), then we should minimize bf fat increases whenever possible because it would make the cutting phase THAT much harder.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

I’m not in any way against getting soft when bulking. I am against getting obese, which in my opinion is over 20% for someone not holding a whole lot of muscle and even for a bigger guy with a whole lot of muscle going more than a couple % over that is in my opinion when you start to border extreme.

with that being said I don’t know why you brought up this thread?

Most of those guys (excluding Priest) although soft arn’t fat or far off from a 16 weeks show prep.

Also I’d like to mention these days top pros seem to be staying leaner in the off season than in the past.

Now whether bulking was necessary for them to get that big in the first place… I really don’t think so… I’m assuming with the genetics and drug response of a top pro I’m sure they could have stayed at 15% or less and gained the amount of muscle they have.

But as a natty I think staying leaner CAN POSSIBLY be way more important because hormonally everyone is optimal at a certain bf % which can differ from person to person.

I know at 250lbs at/near/or over 30% I destroyed my endocrine system and it wasn’t until I lost about 40 pounds and got under 18% that a lot of the symptoms of a shitty hormonal started to slowly go away.

Also by the end of this I would have spent 1 year and 3 months cutting. This is a long time to spend not eating enough to support real gains for someone who is interested in bodybuilding.

Only if I would have spent a little less time shoving food in my mouth I could have probably done a normal 3-6 month cut and spent the rest of the year focusing on moving forward rather than stagnating/maybe even moving backwards.

Moral of the story.
Getting fat is not okay. Staying too lean for some can also keep you from gaining muscle as well…but we all know this.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

When people discuss the uppermost amount of LBM people have carried at specific bodyfat percentages, they’re not saying to people they shouldn’t do with their bodies what the please.
[/quote]

Once again, the reason this even catches flack is because the entire basis of this is weak. It doesn’t matter what “most people in natural bodybuilding reached”. It is nothing but a nice number to maybe know or keep in the back of your mind after you already got big.

I would look at pro sports before that because I doubt most guys with FREAK genetics wake up one day and decide “natural bodybuilding” is their life goal.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

When people discuss the uppermost amount of LBM people have carried at specific bodyfat percentages, they’re not saying to people they shouldn’t do with their bodies what the please.
[/quote]

Once again, the reason this even catches flack is because the entire basis of this is weak. It doesn’t matter what “most people in natural bodybuilding reached”. It is nothing but a nice number to maybe know or keep in the back of your mind after you already got big.

I would look at pro sports before that because I doubt most guys with FREAK genetics wake up one day and decide “natural bodybuilding” is their life goal.[/quote]

We’ve discussed this before. Not everyone with freak genetics makes it to the pro or elite ranks of sports either. There isn’t an infinite amount of spots in pro sports and most people don’t have the proper resources or backing to make it.

I’ve been on the fence about this whole thing since I started training. I know I personally got too soft in my bulk which included 100 lb weight gain (but god damn I looked good in clothes).

It sounds great to be able to stay lean and gain muscle at the same rate as those getting a bit soft.

But empirical evidence seems to show all really big dudes bulked up at some point. I can’t help but think that’s not a coincidence.

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

We’ve discussed this before. Not everyone with freak genetics makes it to the pro or elite ranks of sports either. There isn’t an infinite amount of spots in pro sports and most people don’t have the proper resources or backing to make it. [/quote]

??/ That isn’t the point. If you limit “your understanding of real physical limits” to ONLY PEOPLE WHO COMPETED IN NATURAL BODYBUILDING it ignores several important factors that eliminate the validity of ONLY using that pool of info.

  1. Most humans want money, fame and sex…as some ultimate life goal.

  2. Natural bodybuilding would be the least productive way to reach those goals if someone has amazing genetics for physical development and strength.

  3. Therefore, it is doubtful that the people with THE BEST GENETICS IN THE WORLD would ever worry about natural bodybuilding…even though there are some very gifted natural bodybuilders.

Back on the topic of the thread, I do believe in set points. I was 190 pounds before I started training, all skin and bones. If I ate exactly as I was eating before I started training, I would not drop back down to 190 pounds, I found it hard while DIETING to get lower than 230 pounds. Isn’t that what we’re talking about? My body’s set point before training was 190 pounds, today it is most definitely higher.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Back on the topic of the thread, I do believe in set points. I was 190 pounds before I started training, all skin and bones. If I ate exactly as I was eating before I started training, I would not drop back down to 190 pounds, I found it hard while DIETING to get lower than 230 pounds. Isn’t that what we’re talking about? My body’s set point before training was 190 pounds, today it is most definitely higher. [/quote]

That’s what most big people I have ever met noticed.

I am wondering how this became “X’s theory”.

Bluecollartrain alone in this thread should eliminate the focus on me alone and keep this thread on topic.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I’ve been on the fence about this whole thing since I started training. I know I personally got too soft in my bulk which included 100 lb weight gain (but god damn I looked good in clothes).

It sounds great to be able to stay lean and gain muscle at the same rate as those getting a bit soft.

But empirical evidence seems to show all really big dudes bulked up at some point. I can’t help but think that’s not a coincidence.
[/quote]

Alternatively, it seems be a predictable “mistake” to make as a beginner, given basic human psychology. Self-delusion comes easy when the weights and scale go up and you look better in clothes.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Back on the topic of the thread, I do believe in set points. I was 190 pounds before I started training, all skin and bones. If I ate exactly as I was eating before I started training, I would not drop back down to 190 pounds, I found it hard while DIETING to get lower than 230 pounds. Isn’t that what we’re talking about? My body’s set point before training was 190 pounds, today it is most definitely higher. [/quote]

That’s what most big people I have ever met noticed.

I am wondering how this became “X’s theory”.

Bluecollartrain alone in this thread should eliminate the focus on me alone and keep this thread on topic.[/quote]

The thread shifted a bit to the never ending “bulk or stay lean” argument, but I don’t see how set points is even debatable. When I was 190 pounds, not training, not very active and eating whatever the hell I wanted, I stayed 190 pounds. When I was dieting I was very active, eating very little and I found it hard to get down below 230 pounds.

The body seems to appreciate homeostasis, which is exactly what a weight set point is.

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I’ve been on the fence about this whole thing since I started training. I know I personally got too soft in my bulk which included 100 lb weight gain (but god damn I looked good in clothes).

It sounds great to be able to stay lean and gain muscle at the same rate as those getting a bit soft.

But empirical evidence seems to show all really big dudes bulked up at some point. I can’t help but think that’s not a coincidence.
[/quote]

Alternatively, it seems be a predictable “mistake” to make as a beginner, given basic human psychology. Self-delusion comes easy when the weights and scale go up and you look better in clothes.[/quote]

Yeah, it could be that every built man has made the same mistake. But like I said, I can’t help but think it’s NOT a coincidence.

Please keep this thread on topic.

WOW joined the boards because a fellow member sent me here because they said I could offer some good information. I posted on here 36 hours ago and now there’s 8 PAGES that I had to catch up with…

Started to read them, and it’s like watching a version of the “Jerry Springer” show. Don’t know about this site.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I’ve been on the fence about this whole thing since I started training. I know I personally got too soft in my bulk which included 100 lb weight gain (but god damn I looked good in clothes).

It sounds great to be able to stay lean and gain muscle at the same rate as those getting a bit soft.

But empirical evidence seems to show all really big dudes bulked up at some point. I can’t help but think that’s not a coincidence.
[/quote]

Alternatively, it seems be a predictable “mistake” to make as a beginner, given basic human psychology. Self-delusion comes easy when the weights and scale go up and you look better in clothes.[/quote]

Yeah, it could be that every built man has made the same mistake. But like I said, I can’t help but think it’s NOT a coincidence. [/quote]

Also, there is a difference between someone with some true “small man syndrome” and a guy who is all out trying to get really big. Self delusion would be becoming truly obese yet seeing only muscle. Most of the guys I know who did bulk up knew very well what their goal was and where they stood at the moment.

I don’t think any of us are discussing someone who is literally just fat but thinks they are built.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I’ve been on the fence about this whole thing since I started training. I know I personally got too soft in my bulk which included 100 lb weight gain (but god damn I looked good in clothes).

It sounds great to be able to stay lean and gain muscle at the same rate as those getting a bit soft.

But empirical evidence seems to show all really big dudes bulked up at some point. I can’t help but think that’s not a coincidence.
[/quote]

Alternatively, it seems be a predictable “mistake” to make as a beginner, given basic human psychology. Self-delusion comes easy when the weights and scale go up and you look better in clothes.[/quote]

Yeah, it could be that every built man has made the same mistake. But like I said, I can’t help but think it’s NOT a coincidence. [/quote]

I don’t consider having ‘gotten a little soft’ as a mistake. I think it is what is required to establish the current boundry. Like missing a ‘top-end’ attempt every now and then. Not a place to spend an extended period of time, but you can ‘pound the living shit’ out of your body and survive; and learn a great deal about yourself in the process.

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]infinite_shore wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
I’ve been on the fence about this whole thing since I started training. I know I personally got too soft in my bulk which included 100 lb weight gain (but god damn I looked good in clothes).

It sounds great to be able to stay lean and gain muscle at the same rate as those getting a bit soft.

But empirical evidence seems to show all really big dudes bulked up at some point. I can’t help but think that’s not a coincidence.
[/quote]

Alternatively, it seems be a predictable “mistake” to make as a beginner, given basic human psychology. Self-delusion comes easy when the weights and scale go up and you look better in clothes.[/quote]

Yeah, it could be that every built man has made the same mistake. But like I said, I can’t help but think it’s NOT a coincidence. [/quote]

I don’t consider having ‘gotten a little soft’ as a mistake. I think it is what is required to establish the current boundry. Like missing a ‘top-end’ attempt every now and then. Not a place to spend an extended period of time, but you can ‘pound the living shit’ out of your body and survive; and learn a great deal about yourself in the process. [/quote]

I agree. It had many benefits, if nothing else than to show me exactly what “limit” is comfortable for me to grow the fastest allowed by my genetics and work ethic. This is a game of trial and error.

Anyone acting like the path is already mapped out before they begin does not understand biology very well.