Only Gain a Half Pound of Muscle a Month

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
In a trained individual 2 lbs a month would be fucking mind blowing. I doubt those using assistance could pull that off. Maybe it is possible, but definitely not long term or constant. [/quote]

He’s not saying 2 lbs. per month…he’s saying 2 lbs. of muscle TOTAL in 3 months [/quote]

Sounds about right. Why don’t you prove him and me wrong if you feel so confident? Pics and at least a 7 site skin fold done by the same trainer.
[/quote]

Sounds good to me :slight_smile:

I already gained 20 lbs. since september 1st, and I’m betting only about 8 or 9 of that is fat. Hell last time I bulked for several months I ended up gaining almost a pound of muscle per week.

22

Eh. Once you get to a certain point, it almost feels like 5-7 total LBM gains per year. Which is good! Obviously people with more natural T production or assisted lifters will gain more, and even more for those who are biomechanically gifted(skeletal structure). But not so gifted people can still get big, just takes a lot longer.

23

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
In a trained individual 2 lbs a month would be fucking mind blowing. I doubt those using assistance could pull that off. Maybe it is possible, but definitely not long term or constant. [/quote]

He’s not saying 2 lbs. per month…he’s saying 2 lbs. of muscle TOTAL in 3 months [/quote]

Sounds about right. Why don’t you prove him and me wrong if you feel so confident? Pics and at least a 7 site skin fold done by the same trainer.
[/quote]

Sounds good to me :slight_smile:

I already gained 20 lbs. since september 1st, and I’m betting only about 8 or 9 of that is fat. Hell last time I bulked for several months I ended up gaining almost a pound of muscle per week. [/quote]

Think about it. 2 lbs per month. 24 lbs per year. 120 lbs of muscle in 5 years. 240 lbs of muscle in 10 years. At what point do you see this isn’t a realistic growth trend?

2 lbs per month may be possible over a short term for a beginner, but eventually it becomes unsustainable. I’m not saying you shouldn’t try… well, maybe I am. Because thinking you’re going to become yoked in three months might lead to disappointment. Getting big and strong is about hard work consistently applied over a long time.

24
25

[quote]Freyr wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
In a trained individual 2 lbs a month would be fucking mind blowing. I doubt those using assistance could pull that off. Maybe it is possible, but definitely not long term or constant. [/quote]

He’s not saying 2 lbs. per month…he’s saying 2 lbs. of muscle TOTAL in 3 months [/quote]

Sounds about right. Why don’t you prove him and me wrong if you feel so confident? Pics and at least a 7 site skin fold done by the same trainer.
[/quote]

Sounds good to me :slight_smile:

I already gained 20 lbs. since september 1st, and I’m betting only about 8 or 9 of that is fat. Hell last time I bulked for several months I ended up gaining almost a pound of muscle per week. [/quote]

Think about it. 2 lbs per month. 24 lbs per year. 120 lbs of muscle in 5 years. 240 lbs of muscle in 10 years. At what point do you see this isn’t a realistic growth trend?

2 lbs per month may be possible over a short term for a beginner, but eventually it becomes unsustainable. I’m not saying you shouldn’t try… well, maybe I am. Because thinking you’re going to become yoked in three months might lead to disappointment. Getting big and strong is about hard work consistently applied over a long time.[/quote]

Yeah, when you’re up against your genetic limits of course it’ll slow down. If I can’t go from about 190 to 230 gaining decent mass I’d have to have the genetics of a pygmy!

26

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
I wanted to get on with my workout so I didn’t point out the last time I bulked I went from 178 to 213 in 5 months, and that about 70-75% of that was muscle. I may just ask him next time I see him how he thinks people gain muscle…[/quote]

It’s a good thing you didn’t point it out, you would’ve looked like a moron. Even people in this thread are saying that 2lbs of lean body mass a month is a large gain and you’re stating that you gained 25lbs of muscle - not glycogen, not water, but muscle - in 5 months.

Where are your DEXA or hydrostatic body fat testing results?

27

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
I wanted to get on with my workout so I didn’t point out the last time I bulked I went from 178 to 213 in 5 months, and that about 70-75% of that was muscle. I may just ask him next time I see him how he thinks people gain muscle…[/quote]

It’s a good thing you didn’t point it out, you would’ve looked like a moron. Even people in this thread are saying that 2lbs of lean body mass a month is a large gain and you’re stating that you gained 25lbs of muscle - not glycogen, not water, but muscle - in 5 months.

Where are your DEXA or hydrostatic body fat testing results?
[/quote]

so you think the OP gained 25lbs of water and glycogen?

28

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
I wanted to get on with my workout so I didn’t point out the last time I bulked I went from 178 to 213 in 5 months, and that about 70-75% of that was muscle. I may just ask him next time I see him how he thinks people gain muscle…[/quote]

It’s a good thing you didn’t point it out, you would’ve looked like a moron. Even people in this thread are saying that 2lbs of lean body mass a month is a large gain and you’re stating that you gained 25lbs of muscle - not glycogen, not water, but muscle - in 5 months.

Where are your DEXA or hydrostatic body fat testing results?
[/quote]

so you think the OP gained 25lbs of water and glycogen?[/quote]

He didnt say that. But think about how much glycogen can be stored in a pound of muscle fiber. Enough that it’s not an insignificant number

29

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
I wanted to get on with my workout so I didn’t point out the last time I bulked I went from 178 to 213 in 5 months, and that about 70-75% of that was muscle. I may just ask him next time I see him how he thinks people gain muscle…[/quote]

It’s a good thing you didn’t point it out, you would’ve looked like a moron. Even people in this thread are saying that 2lbs of lean body mass a month is a large gain and you’re stating that you gained 25lbs of muscle - not glycogen, not water, but muscle - in 5 months.

Where are your DEXA or hydrostatic body fat testing results?
[/quote]

so you think the OP gained 25lbs of water and glycogen?[/quote]

He didnt say that. But think about how much glycogen can be stored in a pound of muscle fiber. [/quote]

I know he didnt exactly say that but he did say “you’re stating that you gained 25lbs of muscle- not glycogen, not water, but muscle - in 5 months” (seemed to be implying that the weight was either water or glycogen… not muscle)

I know its nit picking but I was just clarifying a bit.

I think the OP isnt forgetting that the more muscle you have, the more fat you can carry and still look good. So if he gained a good amount of muscle he could be putting on fat that he might not notice as much because of the new muscle.

I.E. 150lbs with 10%BF will look A LOT different than someone who is 220 @ 10%BF. Even though guy number 2 is carry more fat he’ll look a lot better

EDIT: Im not sure exactly if what I said makes sense or not? It makes sense in my head but Im not sure about my post?

30

[quote]gregron wrote:
so you think the OP gained 25lbs of water and glycogen?[/quote]

No, I think he gained fat, hence the request for body comp testing results.

The gains the OP is talking about would be indicative of a hugely successful AAS cycle.

31

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
so you think the OP gained 25lbs of water and glycogen?[/quote]

No, I think he gained fat, hence the request for body comp testing results.

The gains the OP is talking about would be indicative of a hugely successful AAS cycle.
[/quote]

?

In all cases? I have written this several times over years, but one of the guys I trained put on 20lbs in two months and didn’t visibly look fatter at all. Yes, it is likely he gained SOME fat (we only took fat readings afterwards but his abs were still showing like day one), but to act like no one on Earth can gain 20lbs of “mostly muscle” (meaning more than half of that weight) in a couple of months is ridiculous. I did it. Others did it. The guy I spoke of was also NOT a beginner but a college level football player.

The people with the genetics for this will not fall into the “average” category of a Bell Curve and if “average” was used to form your limits, why assume everyone else is average?

Your body grows in spurts, not linearly in a way where you can even say, “you only gain 1lbs a month”. The entire idea is basic as all hell because the more likely scenario is gaining 3lbs one month, 1lbs the next, 0lbs after that, 4lbs the next assuming decent genetics and massive food intake.

Things like this are not impossible and in my experience, the people most focused on limits are least likely to get close even to the limits they set.

32

I think most people her do not realize how tremendous 25 lbs of muscle is.

33

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:
I wanted to get on with my workout so I didn’t point out the last time I bulked I went from 178 to 213 in 5 months, and that about 70-75% of that was muscle. I may just ask him next time I see him how he thinks people gain muscle…[/quote]

It’s a good thing you didn’t point it out, you would’ve looked like a moron. Even people in this thread are saying that 2lbs of lean body mass a month is a large gain and you’re stating that you gained 25lbs of muscle - not glycogen, not water, but muscle - in 5 months.

Where are your DEXA or hydrostatic body fat testing results?
[/quote]

Again, he’s saying 2 lbs. TOTAL in 3 months. Cripes I’ve said that like 7 times in this thread.

34

[quote]gregron wrote:
I know he didnt exactly say that but he did say “you’re stating that you gained 25lbs of muscle- not glycogen, not water, but muscle - in 5 months” (seemed to be implying that the weight was either water or glycogen… not muscle)

I know its nit picking but I was just clarifying a bit.

I think the OP isnt forgetting that the more muscle you have, the more fat you can carry and still look good. So if he gained a good amount of muscle he could be putting on fat that he might not notice as much because of the new muscle.

I.E. 150lbs with 10%BF will look A LOT different than someone who is 220 @ 10%BF. Even though guy number 2 is carry more fat he’ll look a lot better

EDIT: Im not sure exactly if what I said makes sense or not? It makes sense in my head but Im not sure about my post?[/quote]

Exactly Gregron. I’m not saying I gained 35 lbs. of muscle over several months…I gained 35 lbs. (178 on Day 1, peak at 213). I just checked my old records, and based on calipering which I had done every other week by the same guy over that period I gained around 20 lbs. of “muscle” and 15 lbs. of fat over several months. It averaged out to about 3.5 lbs of lbm per month, slanted more towards the beginning, although right in the middle I had a month where I hit a ‘growth spurt’ and ended up putting on something in the neighborhood of 6 & 3 for a total of 9 lbs. that month. That was the first time I passed 200 lbs. actually, I remember it because I posted a ‘thank you’ thread here, and Prof X invited me to T-Cell Alpha. That was only my most recent bulk, prior to this one. I’ve done a few before that one with similar results.

Most people I know that bulk like I do have similar results albeit not quite as good; I do have good genetics. I’m shocked there’s even a debate here. If I was an NPC competitor and had been training balls to the wall for a decade and was claiming to still be putting on several pounds of body mass per month, then yeah, that’d be weird. Otherwise, for someone not brushing up against their genetic limit, I see no reason why I, or anyone else in the same situation can’t gain muscle at a much more rapid rate than 2 lbs. total over 3 months. That’s only a half pound per month. If my progress on a bulk was that slow I’d stab myself in the throat.

I wasn’t trying to start a huge debate, I was just shocked to hear something so limiting from a trainer, and one that’s had success it looks like. As others have said here, who gives a shit if he’s trying to piss on the parade (not that he was trying to). If some people here want to think you can’t gain more than a half pound of muscle per month, more power to you.

35

I think the biggest problem with this debate is whether or not it matters. I don’t mean that in such a way to say this is dumb, we shouldn’t be talking about it, although I think it’s pretty stupid.
What I mean is someone says “I’m gonna gain 10lbs of mass in one month.” Someone responds, “You can only gain half a pound of contractile muscle per month.” That stat doesn’t fucking matter because no one is going to gain only contractile tissue. They’re going to gain glycogen and water and other shit, too. Guess what. He’s still getting bigger and not fatter. Interestingly enough, the Thibs article that everyone quotes when referencing limits to muscular gains states that along with gains of pure tissue you will gains fluids and the like.
Anyone whose bulk is an attempt to gain strictly contractile tissue will never make impressive gains.

36

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
I think most people her do not realize how tremendous 25 lbs of muscle is.[/quote]

x1000

37

I am neither big nor strong. I’m not pretending that I am, nor am I an expert. The following is just my opinion based on five years of observation of myself and others, a lot of reading and conversations with some very smart, very strong and very big guys.

I don’t really see anything wrong or shocking about what the trainer said. In fact, he’s probably dead on for 99% of people. Strength gains are largely a combination of skill, mental fortitude and NEURO-muscular adaptation. Gaining size helps with leverage and other factors but it isn’t the end all be all of strength gains. The vast majority of people could probably do better with a maintenance diet and consistent heavy lifting rather than any kind of “bulking” plan both in terms of strength gains and physique goals.

Do not delude yourself that the majority of your gains on a “bulk” will be muscular. Unless you are very consistent in the gym I would in fact doubt that a significant percent of new size would be muscular.

That said, there is only one way to get to 250 lbs. If your goal is increased size, increased calories are a must. Just be realistic about the fact that a) strength gains and size gains do not directly correlate b) neither are linear, and c) only a small percentage of weight gained will be muscle.

38

[quote]atg410 wrote:

I don’t really see anything wrong or shocking about what the trainer said. In fact, he’s probably dead on for 99% of people. Strength gains are largely a combination of skill, mental fortitude and NEURO-muscular adaptation. Gaining size helps with leverage and other factors but it isn’t the end all be all of strength gains. The vast majority of people could probably do better with a maintenance diet and consistent heavy lifting rather than any kind of “bulking” plan both in terms of strength gains and physique goals.

Do not delude yourself that the majority of your gains on a “bulk” will be muscular. Unless you are very consistent in the gym I would in fact doubt that a significant percent of new size would be muscular.

[/quote]

Wrong. The MINORITY will do well eating maintenance calories. The EXTREME MINORITY. Because its no secret why muscles grow, or get stronger, or why fat is lost. Energy. If you eat exactly the amount you burn you will stop making progress as soon as your neural adaptation maxes out (which should happen pretty quickly).

If someone DOESNT gain mostly muscle on a ‘bulk’, then guess what, they did it wrong. So please be quiet about this stuff because you dont know what youre tlaking about, regardless of what your posse says.

Your comment about being ‘very consistent in the gym’ says it all. Go back to lifting for 3 hours a week and shut up. That qualifier makes your post one of the worst I’ve seen on this board in a long time. Pathetic.

39

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
I think most people her do not realize how tremendous 25 lbs of muscle is.[/quote]

Honestly one of the best statements in this thread, right here.

A 200 lb male with %10 body fat has 180 lbs of lean body mass. This includes water, bone, organs, skin, hair, teeth, etc. Of that, some small percentage is actually muscle, lets say for our purposes it’s 50 lbs. To gain 25 lbs of muscle means you’re increasing your total amount of muscle by %50, a tremendous increase. And then to say that you’ve done it in 5 months…

Or, to put it another way: Go to the store and grab twelve 2 lb containers of ground sirloin and start slabbing them on to you, that’s what 25 lbs of muscle would look like.

40

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:

[quote]atg410 wrote:

I don’t really see anything wrong or shocking about what the trainer said. In fact, he’s probably dead on for 99% of people. Strength gains are largely a combination of skill, mental fortitude and NEURO-muscular adaptation. Gaining size helps with leverage and other factors but it isn’t the end all be all of strength gains. The vast majority of people could probably do better with a maintenance diet and consistent heavy lifting rather than any kind of “bulking” plan both in terms of strength gains and physique goals.

Do not delude yourself that the majority of your gains on a “bulk” will be muscular. Unless you are very consistent in the gym I would in fact doubt that a significant percent of new size would be muscular.

[/quote]

Wrong. The MINORITY will do well eating maintenance calories. The EXTREME MINORITY. Because its no secret why muscles grow, or get stronger, or why fat is lost. Energy. If you eat exactly the amount you burn you will stop making progress as soon as your neural adaptation maxes out (which should happen pretty quickly).

If someone DOESNT gain mostly muscle on a ‘bulk’, then guess what, they did it wrong. So please be quiet about this stuff because you dont know what youre tlaking about, regardless of what your posse says.

Your comment about being ‘very consistent in the gym’ says it all. Go back to lifting for 3 hours a week and shut up. That qualifier makes your post one of the worst I’ve seen on this board in a long time. Pathetic. [/quote]

I’m going to apologize in advance for the threadjack.

Bonez,

You give a lot of great advice on these forums, seriously, you are clearly knowledgable and experienced and your wisdom is frequently combined with wit which is always a plus.

That said, you didn’t actually disprove anything that I stated, but that’s cool, that’s why I largely avoid posting on this board. Do you really think that a majority of people “bulking up” make the kind of gains they want or anticipate? Yes, some people have a great amount of success with this strategy. That still doesn’t disprove anything I said.

Did I tell OP not to bulk? Did I tell OP to eat at maintenance calories? Did I ever imply that eating at maintenance does not involve increasing calories as energy demands increase? Did you just say that CONSISTENCY is a PROBLEM in the gym? So OP should bust ass some days and slack off others? I lift consistently. I lift at a consistently high intensity, I consistently make it to the gym when I plan to, I consistently hit the numbers and reps that I plan for.

Please use some critical reading skills next time and save the insults for someone who gives a shit.