and this book can also be…a hat
[quote]ironbyron wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
The great bulking debate will never be settled as long as there are people out there who come up with the most ingenious excuses for not training or eating. If the right attitude isn’t there to begin with, no amount of explanation will suffice.[/quote]
That is why I am stating universals that are true 100% of the time. It is relativistic thinking that kills people’s progress. The universal is that if someone bulks they are building muscle. If they attempted to bulk but failed, then they are not truly bulking and therefore not building muscle. If they are bulking then they are eating in excess amount of food and training hard and effective. This is because you cannot build muscle without excess nutrients via food and hard, effective training. This is not an explanation, it is a LAW. There is no way around it. [/quote]
That wasn’t my point. I’m saying that you’re preaching to the choir because the people that need to hear what you have to say won’t listen. It’s been tried many times before and explained in much simpler terms. Try explaining the above to someone who says they want to gain muscle but are too afraid of blurring their abs to even eat like a normal person, let alone “bulk”.
“Universals” don’t matter to people who claim to want change, but are too stuck on the way they look to initiate any change. You end up in a ridiculous situation where you’re having to convince them to train and eat in a certain way, when they are the ones seeking advice.
People who aren’t receptive to change are not the most receptive of advice.
^ That last sentence applies to internet discussions as well…
And I believe that’s my cue for stepping away from this one…
[quote]ironbyron wrote:
[quote]WP wrote:
[quote]ironbyron wrote:
III: Tautology of excess calories for bulking
If you eat an excess of calories, then you are in a surplus. Most people don't know what constitutes a surplus of calories because everyone is different. So you can either be conservative about it or you can ensure this excess through a true overabundance of calories. The best way to achieve this is through eating food that is extremely dense in calories. All food that is dense in calories are foods that are high in either:
A. Carbohydrates
B. Fats
C. Protein
D. All of the above
Since you are bulking and thus muscle building, you automatically need to increase the macro-nutrient that contributes to muscle building. Since muscles are made of proteins, you need to increase your protein. Now simply increasing protein will not build muscle even with training because this increase will hardly put a person in maintenance if they are training correctly. For instance, lets say a person eats 300 Carbs a day, 60 grams of protein and 100 grams of fat a day. Their total caloric intake is 2340. If they up their protein intake to 300 grams, than their is an increase of 240 grams of protein and therefore 960 additional calories. This puts the person up to 3300 Calories.
But if they are training correctly, than they will have expended calories during and after the weight training session. This in addition to the thermic effect of protein, could not possibly put them in a surplus. If they are in a surplus with 3300 calories they are either:
- A woman
- a 150 Lb Male who is over 40 who wants to remain 150 LBS
- Ronnie Coleman’s left calf.
Given this, simply upping protein is not sufficient due to its thermic effect, its effects on satiety, and another forgotten element.
IV: Fat and Carbs: The forgotten element
I know that vets like X don't need to be patronized on this one. Guys like him have the forgotten element. That is why they are the size they are. I have a feeling X didn't just increase his protein to achieve his size. Believe it or not, he probably upped his fats and carbs to. Which brings me to another universal:
If you want to build muscle, you HAVE to increase Carbs or Fats (preferably both) in addition to protein. The simple addition of protein even if it is 2 grams/LB is simply not enough calories. It gets offset through the strenuous exercise resulting in no muscle gain. Remember, if you are bulking you have to do strenuous exercise through some form of weight training. To ensure you are in an excess, you have to up one (better yet both) for two reasons:
- insurance of calories
- protein sparing effects of these two macro-nutrients
Remember that if you only eat excess protein without eating excess carbs or fats (or both), it is likely that the excess protein will be used for energy to burn, not build. Only upping protein without an increase of carbs or fats results in two things:
- The body using the extra protein to maintain weight, since the body likes to maintain weight
2)The body utilizing the extra protein for reasons other than muscle building
But you increased the protein to build muscle. So if you want to ensure that the increased protein can be used for muscle (almost like your giving your body permission to do so) you have to also increase the other macro-nutrients. Your body has no ability to use the protein for muscle if it is busy burning the protein for energy because carbs/fats are low.
[/quote]
Dude, are you talking to someone specifically or are you trying to write your own article?
I honestly don’t know who will find this more useful than the hundreds of articles already on the site.
[/quote]
90% of people on this forum who obviously didn’t read those dozens of articles because if they did they would look like they utilized those principles.
[/quote]
Because obviously your one forum thread will somehow make this “90% of people” take your article seriously and listen to you.
OP: You write like someone who just finished taking their first formal logic class. I mean… yes, we understand that you know what Modus Tollens means. However, the actual content of your posts (which I agree with, by the way) would be communicated much more effectively if you just wrote like a normal person.
[quote]Silfen wrote:
OP: You write like someone who just finished taking their first formal logic class. I mean… yes, we understand that you know what Modus Tollens means. However, the actual content of your posts (which I agree with, by the way) would be communicated much more effectively if you just wrote like a normal person.[/quote]
I concur!
Or, in plain forum slang: x2
If you dont do what I say you’re gonna waste time…Mkay?
[quote]ironbyron wrote:
[quote]alexus wrote:
if you lift weights you have to lift for size or* strength (* inclusive DISJUNCTION—means size or strength or both.) If you are lifting weights for any other reason you are automatically wasting time.
sure. all those olympic lifters training power are wasting time lolz.[/quote]
The people who believe power and strength are two completely separate entities…
[/quote]
I didn’t say they were ‘completely separate entities’ and I’m well aware that power = speedstrength, thanks. It is possible for people to increase their limit strength without increasing their power, however (e.g., by lifting slower) and thus power does not equal speed and since power does not equal size, either, the people training for power are (according to you) wasting their time. I think you are wrong on that.
[quote]ironbyron wrote:
You are telling me right now that if an olympic lifter increases his poundages on a squat (they don’t just do snatches ya know) he only got more powerful but magically gained zero strength? What planet do you live on?
[/quote]
No.
I’m telling you that if an Olympic Lifter increases her poundages on a squat (increasing strength) then this won’t necessarily translate to PR’s on the Olympic Lifts (e.g., because the lifter is still far too slow getting their ass under the bar for the catch). Focusing on squat strength often doesn’t translate into bigger numbers on the Oly Lifts. Powerlifters with comparatively huge squats don’t often (though sometimes do!) make good Olympic Lifters.
[quote]ironbyron wrote:
You can increase power by 1) getting stronger 2) getting faster 3) both. Therefore, to assume OLY lifters exclusively train for speed (although it is emphasized more so than other forms of strength training) is a huge misconception.[/quote]
Are you familiar with the term ‘straw man argument’? I didn’t say Oly Lifters trained exclusively for speed. The issue is that according to what you said before people training for speed (assuming speed does not equal strength or hypertrophy) are wasting their time.
I don’t suppose I’d be so irked by this if it didn’t read like someone really did get carried away with their baby logic…
Your arguments don’t follow btw… Too many implicit premisses and the invalidity would be obvious if you made them explicit
(like with the power point). It only irks me because when you write in a highly technical style (like you do) then you leave yourself open to technical objections. I’d leave it alone if you didn’t so obviously try and make it all valid and all…
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]ironbyron wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
The great bulking debate will never be settled as long as there are people out there who come up with the most ingenious excuses for not training or eating. If the right attitude isn’t there to begin with, no amount of explanation will suffice.[/quote]
That is why I am stating universals that are true 100% of the time. It is relativistic thinking that kills people’s progress. The universal is that if someone bulks they are building muscle. If they attempted to bulk but failed, then they are not truly bulking and therefore not building muscle. If they are bulking then they are eating in excess amount of food and training hard and effective. This is because you cannot build muscle without excess nutrients via food and hard, effective training. This is not an explanation, it is a LAW. There is no way around it. [/quote]
That wasn’t my point. I’m saying that you’re preaching to the choir because the people that need to hear what you have to say won’t listen. It’s been tried many times before and explained in much simpler terms. Try explaining the above to someone who says they want to gain muscle but are too afraid of blurring their abs to even eat like a normal person, let alone “bulk”.
“Universals” don’t matter to people who claim to want change, but are too stuck on the way they look to initiate any change. You end up in a ridiculous situation where you’re having to convince them to train and eat in a certain way, when they are the ones seeking advice.
People who aren’t receptive to change are not the most receptive of advice.
Universals are universals. They apply to everyone whether or not that person accepts them. That is what makes them universal. I am not convincing anyone to train or eat a certain way, I’m telling them to follow universal principles. Universals are general, not “certain” or “specific”. If the person follows all the universal principles stated they will succeed. Moreover, you continue to bastardize “bulk”. I actually don’t believe blurring abs has much to do with building muscle. Blurring abs=gaining fat. I understand some fat gain comes with the territory, but it is funny that the first thing you thought of when you used the term “bulk” was the highest form of ab blurring.
As for people now complaining about my writing style please tell me exactly how you wish me to write and I will do my best to follow suit. I never would have thought that in order for people to take me seriously I would have to use slang every sentence. Sorry.
[/quote]
[quote]ironbyron wrote:
As for people now complaining about my writing style please tell me exactly how you wish me to write and I will do my best to follow suit.
[/quote]
Stop writing?
be more concise and stop with the wall-of-text
I feel like I’m reading the operating manual for DOS.
if power=strength=size…
search for Ivan Chakarov. He has done full high bar back squat 270kgs for 3 reps. That means its very likely he has done near 700lbs at ~90-95kgs/200-210 lbs
look at his “size”
then go look at ronnie coleman.
You WILL gain muscle size by training for speedstrength or by training for hypertrophy. its just that you gain different amounts.
Its pretty clear that powerlifters, strongmen, olympic lifters and bodybuilders all have different physiques and yet they are all best at what they are instead of something else.
How do I join this religion? Is it Christian or Pagan? 
BTW, what do you mean by:
[quote]ironbyron wrote:
I actually don’t believe blurring abs has much to do with building muscle. Blurring abs=gaining fat. I understand some fat gain comes with the territory, but it is funny that the first thing you thought of when you used the term “bulk” was the highest form of ab blurring.
[/quote]
?
Am I reading you wrong?
Nobody can say that bulking = no blurring of the abs. It’s contradictory to say that some fat gain is acceptable but then turn around and say that the abs (of which many put much of their weight) shouldn’t blur…that’s just as bad as the extremely “lean gaining” crew.
My abs start to blur just above the 12-13% mark (top 4 abs show), but I sure don’t feel the need to suddenly put the brakes on when I could put on another 15-20lbs (over 60% muscle) without looking like a pile of lard.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
My abs start to blur just above the 12-13% mark (top 4 abs show), but I sure don’t feel the need to suddenly put the brakes on when I could put on another 15-20lbs (over 60% muscle) without looking like a pile of lard.[/quote]
No pics of OP?
Of course not.
Like the pic above I find my belly button blurs when I eat raw midgets.
LOL, photoshop strikes again
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
I feel like I’m reading the operating manual for DOS.[/quote]
Am I the only one who thinks this is funny from experience?
Where can I get Bullqueen steaks?
[quote]howie424 wrote:
Where can I get Bullqueen steaks? [/quote]
They shut down. BurgerKing got pissed at the competition. Their whole gimmick was “birthing cattle right in front of you, just the way you like it”.
Wait times were ridiculous for hamburgers.