Thinkin' Out Loud: Fundamentals

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
interesting responses. NOW we’re conversing like adults (well, MOST of us.)

while i totally understand the “theory” of bulking and cutting, and the fact that it does, much like my post, seem “logical” and “look good on paper”, i’m going to make a somewhat brash statement here and say that, in practice, it usually just doesn’t work. this isn’t just my opinion, here, either. i know it’s shared by several of the authors right here on this site (including christian thibaudeau… and i know you trust him.) please allow me to explain.

it should be no secret that i find the physiques of yesteryear to be FAR more aesthetically pleasing than those of today. but, i realize not everyone shares this viewpoint, so i’ll instead use jay cutler as a more current, relevant example. here is a guy with a weight that fluctuates 30+ lbs. from off season to on. i’ve seen photos of him taken during both of these periods and, while it’s true that even at his heaviest, he’s not “fat” by any stretch of the imagination, he also realizes that he must, in order to look his best, lose as much fat as he can come contest time.

it’s no secret that in order to lose fat, you’re bound to lose muscle along with it and, conversely, it’s also no secret that in order to gain muscle, you’re bound to put on fat (hence jay cutler’s weight fluctuations during the year.) people are talking to me like i don’t know this! but the question that is really begging to be asked here, is simply this:

if jay cutler, and 99.9% of his peers at the olympia, are showing up to compete at “roughly” the same bodyweight (given the same relative level of lean-ness) year after year, is the whole bulking-cutting cycle really necessary or desirable? seriously, i’m asking!

i mean, using myself as an example (modest at best, i know) i can tell you that when i was at my heaviest, i was definitely “bigger” than i am now. i.e. my clothes were tighter, muscle circumferences were larger, etc. but i didn’t look as good, plain and simple. and, assuming that i, like jay cutler, could somehow manage to “bulk up” and add 30 lbs. to my frame without looking like a total mess, would it be worth it if, in order to get back down to the single digits, i just had to lose any muscle that i had just gained?

to bore you with a little history here, this almost “philosophical” struggle bewteen one “bulking up” to his greatest possible size and bodyweight and then “cutting” to get rid of the excess has been going on for quite some time… with many of the experts, from hoffman, to gironda, to thibaudeau, ultimately concluding that while it CAN work, it simply isn’t NECESSARY.

arnold even talked a great deal about this phenomenon in his encyclopedia, by the way. he called it “fear of smallness”, i believe. in a nutshell, he said that when you’re training to look your best (for a competition, a photo shoot, or simply because you enjoy looking your best) you WILL lose size, without a doubt. but it’s completely necessary if you want to reveal the development of the muscle (however modest it may be) that you’ve been working so very hard to build in the first place. he went on to say that the mere idea of giving up some muscle quantity in exchange for some quality is so daunting to most “bodybuilders”, that they will never actually even attempt it or see it through to its ultimate fruition.

you gotta admit, that’s some pretty convincing evidence, no?

i guess it really does just boil down to a person’s goals: big and smooth? or small and cut?

i’m glad we had this conversation.

[/quote]

I think you need to “learn how to use quotes”.

I dont know what you’ve said. I read your first post, OP… even some of the second. It didnt really make sense to me.

I’d love an instant survey of people who thought they could look like a pro bodybuilder on this site. I bet it’s pretty low. So you’re targetting a tiny audience. Out of those people, cool, they’re doing something they enjoy and have goals in their life. They’re walking the walk and you’re just typing the talk.

Secondly, can you please, for the love of god, sum up what you’ve said in a few lines? The lack of punctuation, grammar and rubbish paragraphs make it hard for me to read.

Thirdly, if the summary was “Big and smooth or small and cut?” then I’d choose big and cut. I know that wasn’t your option, but for crying out loud… if you think you can progress all the way up to 200lbs without gaining noticable fat then you need to stop reading articles and learn some biology. Good old school biology to see how muscle is built.

I guess I’ll write up a reply tomorrow. Whatever good that’s gonna do…

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
joe shumsky wrote:
and if you don’t believe me, ask arnold how he feels about suffering his only american competition loss at the hands of one frank zane (a guy who arnold dwarfed in “size”, but certainly not in “shape”… on that particular day, anyway.)

This is bizarre. You have stated that Arnold lost one competition to Zane, having beaten him in all the others, but that solitary defeat proves that you don’t need size? Why didn’t Zane win an Olympia until Arnold had retired (ignoring 1980)?[/quote]

Because Arnold came in better shape the next year.

[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
I guess I’ll write up a reply tomorrow. Whatever good that’s gonna do…
[/quote]

It’s not going to do ANY good. This kid is convinced that gaining more muscle will make him look less pretty. People like that…who then log into bodybuilding forums to proclaim their LACK of significant muscle mass on a lean body justifies a training protocol that most bodybuilders avoid…have mental problems.

I am tired of that argument about how bulking up somehow causes you to lose all muscle gained when diet back down. That only seems to be happening to guys who are so afraid of any fat gain that they are dieting down every couple of months. I didn’t go on any sort of all out diet for the first 3-4 years of training. Maybe that is WHY I hit over 200lbs so quickly.

These guys want everything RIGHT NOW. The last thing they want to hear is that this will take years of eating more than you are comfortable with, years of lifting more than your are comfortable with and setting goals far outside your comfort zone.

My noob thought:

OP look at prof X’s training thread, there’s a picture of him before bulk and pictures after. If that’s not proof that bulking works, I don’t know what is

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:

if jay cutler, and 99.9% of his peers at the olympia, are showing up to compete at “roughly” the same bodyweight (given the same relative level of lean-ness) year after year, is the whole bulking-cutting cycle really necessary or desirable? seriously, i’m asking!

[/quote]

I never knew there were 1000 competitors at the Olympia, and that 999 of them were near the same bodyweight, who’s the odd one out?

Learn to use percentages. In fact, learn to make logical arguments first.

[quote]Bambi wrote:
My noob thought:

OP look at prof X’s training thread, there’s a picture of him before bulk and pictures after. If that’s not proof that bulking works, I don’t know what is[/quote]

More recent ones in the T-Cell thread… Unless that’s the one you meant.

OK I’ll step up since no one else seems to want to recognize the OPs work.

I haven’t been apart of this website all that long but I don’t recall ever hearing about awards given out to members of the forum.

So let this be the innagural award given to a forum member.

Joe Shumsky wins the gold medal for being the Biggest Pussy on T-Nation.

Congrats Joe, you are without question the biggest pussy that is actively posting on this website.

Everyone congratulate him for his hard work.

And no, no one else gets to vote.

Either thread really - either way after reading his posts my fridge suddenly for no related reason filled up with as much meat as I could afford :). X is a freakin tank and inspiration

Personally in a year I have gone from very underweight to an ‘overweight’ BMI of 25 by EATING MUCH MORE THAN I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH. I’ve got a heck of a way to go but I will look better with an extra 30-50 pounds of bodyweight than 170 now and all abs visible. If that’s not within your goals fine, but you are not going to look better simply by being less muscular. Pretty basic point you’re missing there :slight_smile:

Wait a minute… People with years and years of lifting experience are having a serious debate with someone who’s apparently been training for 2 months? Did I miss something here? I think I just entered some wacky parallel universe. I want to go back to the one where inexperienced people just listened to the big guys…

Look bud this is easy, if you want to continue to look pretty and small with next to no muscle mass then continue on doing exactly what your curtently doing. Or if you want to actually make a difference in your physic then pick up the damn fork and eat, and continue to eat for the next fews years while lifting, and not some little pussy lifting but lift heavy and each session make yourself better, adding weight to the bar or more reps. It is a relativitly simple process, not easy, but simple.

Shit doesn’t happen over night, it takes years of hard work and dedication both in the weight room and kitchen. Ask anybody, and I mean anybody who has added considerable muscle to their physique over the years and I guarantee they are going to tell you the same thing. Forget about your damn abs for a while. Until that time please shut up and stop making ridiculous threads and wasting everybody’s time.

[quote]zenomaly wrote:
Wait a minute… People with years and years of lifting experience are having a serious debate with someone who’s apparently been training for 2 months? Did I miss something here? I think I just entered some wacky parallel universe. I want to go back to the one where inexperienced people just listened to the big guys…[/quote]

LOL, just wait until a 160lber tells you how to get huge, that shit happens all the time…

And he’ll tell you to superset deads and chins, because he likes using his CNS to build muscles.

LOL

(Looking swole, by the way dude)

i’ve added an addition 1/3 to myself if i did it any other way i’d likely still be 170lbs or so. We all like to paint the golden era of bodybuilding as “something magical.”

it was magical…but so is TODAY.

you will not get BIG eating chicken and fish w/ steamed veggies. man, that was a meal and a half, how many calories did i just knock down? 193cals. fuck.

correction: if you eat 7-10lbs of fish and chicken daily you may add some size, good luck w/ that though.

OP you do lose some size when trying to get lean, thats completely unavoidable IMO. But its not as dramatic as I think you think. I read somewhere (think its in the AD-book) that a successfull cutting phase should be loss of around 80% fat and 20% muscle and from my experience thats pretty accurate give or take a few % - providing you go about it the right way.

I wasted a SHIT LOAD of time not making progress because I wasnt eating enough, don’t make those same mistakes. I am like you fast metabolism small stomach/appetite, the solution for me was pounding down high calorie home made shakes 4 a day then 2 meals. I have a friend who is the same, lamborghini metabolism, and it worked a treat for him to. He pounded down 6000 calories a day with alot of that coming from liquids (ice cream+milk+peanutbutter+carb powder and blend lol) and went from 140-220 in about a year and a half, not completly lean but he has a 34 inch waist which aint bad.

You should read this article below…


Extreme Eating for Mass
By Jason Mueller

Bodybuilders are constantly in search of substances that will increase anabolism. We take our creatine, glutamine, pyruvate, and a host of other nutritional supplements in our quest for more muscle. Bodybuilders who choose to go the “enhanced” route are always searching for the anabolic drug that will take their physique to the next level. With all of the means at our disposal to increase muscular bodyweight, one simple fact often gets overlooked. Food is the most anabolic substance we can put in our bodies.

What separates pro-bodybuilders from the rest of us? I know that people like to engage in discussions about aesthetics, muscle maturity, and symmetry. However, it’s painfully obvious that the primary difference is muscular size. It’s amusing for me to hear competitors talk about how great their symmetry is despite the fact that they don’t have enough muscle to win a local qualifier. Muscular size is the primary indicator of success in bodybuilding competition. With regular certainty, the largest man on stage wins the show.

Over the past several years, there has been a push inside the supplement industry towards low-calories mass building. We’ve seen “lean-mass” products appear on the market, with all of the major supplements companies like Met-RX and EAS advocating their MRP’s as a way to add lean tissue without gaining additional fat. It is no longer en vogue to bulk-up in the off-season, the industry line that is touted in the magazines these days is that athletes rarely stray too far from their contest bodyweights. With the advent of these new nutritional technologies, it is now possible to be both massively muscled and lean at all times. Horse****!!!

The truth is that the pictures seen in the various bodybuilding publications are all taken immediately before or after contests. It is not uncommon to see a bodybuilder put on 20+ lbs the day after a contest! Most bodybuilding aficionados don’t have the slightest idea of what these athletes look like 95% of the year. It’s mistakenly assumed that these guys always look fairly lean and chiseled. Nothing could be further from the truth.

By attempting to stay lean year-round, you are sabotaging your goals to become as muscular as humanly possible. Athletes who constantly chase more muscle while worrying about body fat levels will never gain the muscle they need to achieve their goals. Let’s consider this question: Which is harder to build, fat or muscle? Obviously, muscle. Next question. Which is easier to lose, fat or muscle? For those of you that said muscle, sorry, wrong answer, thanks for playing. Once muscle is built it’s a fairly easy proposition to maintain it while dieting off body fat.

I honestly can’t fault anyone for following these “lean mass” programs. Being bloated and fat in the off-season isn’t any fun. If any of you have had the chance to see Lee Priest in the off-season, you’ll know what I mean. The man is nearly unrecognizable from the contest and ad pictures we constantly see in the various publications. Lee doesn’t get just a little heavy, he gets fat. It don’t think he would be offended if I say he looks like a lop of ****. However, when the fat comes off, and it surely does every year, Lee’s physique is amazing. If you talk to Lee, and ask him what his secret to success is, he’ll tell you. It’s food.

So, why all the secrecy and smoke and mirrors surrounding the nutritional profiles of these athletes? One simple reason. Money. Money from endorsements, contracts, and ad work. Say I’m an up and coming national level bodybuilder. I’m eating over 7,000 calories a day. In order to do this, I’m consuming a lot of fatty foods, hell, I’m eating McDonalds and ice cream as much as possible. Why? Because I cannot physically consume that level of caloric intake in clean, low-fat foods. It cannot be done. However, do the supplement companies want their customers to know this? Of course not. Look, it’s an accepted premise that all national and professional level bodybuilders take steroids, right? However, it’s something that’s never discussed in the supplement industry, and bodybuilders get paid to endorse products. So, they lie. My success is based largely on the fact that I use XYZ Protein. I was able to compete 20 lb heavier at this year’s Mr. O because I was taking Sportgear prohormones. Whatever. My point isn’t that nutritional supplements don’t have their place, they certainly do. My point is that professional bodybuilders are used because there is a large segment of the population that would like to emulate that look. If they can be made to believe that look is obtained through clean eating and sports supplements, who’s hurt, right?

I’ve seen so many genetically gifted bodybuilders fail in the quest to achieve greatness. 9 times out of 10 the culprit is nutrition. Specifically, the problem is not consuming enough calories. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had an athlete come to me who has hit a plateau. I modify their nutrition slightly and they are growing again. People, you are not going to achieve brutal muscle size on 3,500 kcal a day!! I don’t care what anyone else tells you, I’ve seen it fail and I know it doesn’t work. All successful national and professional level bodybuilders eat all day long. In the off-season their only concern is getting those meals in and eating enough protein. Anyone can train intensely given the right circumstances and knowledge. Any fool can jab themselves with steroids. However, there are very few people in the sport of bodybuilding that are consistently able, day in and day out, to eat their 6-8 meals a day and consume enough calories to reach anabolic extreme.

What are your goals as a bodybuilder? Is it your goal to have an aesthetically pleasing physique, staying relatively lean year round? Or is it to carry as much muscle as your genetic potential will allow? One goal is not nobler than the other, but they certainly require different strategies. While it is possible to stay relatively lean year round once a desired level of muscle has been achieved, it is not possible to do this while trying to gain the muscle initially. Unless extraordinary circumstances are present, muscle cannot be added and fat lost at the same time!! The conditions necessary for this to happen are so rare and require so many drugs that it’s not worthy of discussion in this article. Muscle is gained by eating over and above what is required for maintenance. Fat is lost by eating less than what is required for maintenance. It’s virtually impossible to gain muscle without adding some concomitant fat, conversely, it’s almost impossible to lose fat without losing concomitant muscle tissue. These are the irrefutable facts.

We see a lot of huge professional bodybuilders in the off-season that would not be characterized as “fat” in the normal sense of the word. They are fat only by bodybuilding standards. Last Saturday I was lucky enough to see Ronnie Coleman in Sacramento, CA. Ronnie competes close to 260 lbs at a height of about 5’10". When I saw him, he was weighing in at about 305 lb still appearing to be fairly lean, just weeks after his wins at some major European shows. The whole time I was at this event, Ronnie was eating. Burgers, fries, you name it, he ate it. In a few months, he should well over 320, eating everything in site in his attempt to add more muscle. This is 60+ lb over his competition bodyweight. It’s also what is necessary to continue to grow.

Dorian is one of the people responsible for the new era of freakiness seen in bodybuilding today. I was fortunate enough to see Dorian a few times in the off-season during his competitive heyday. I was able to sit and have lunch with Dorian through a friend of mine immediately after he announced his retirement from competition. Among the myriad of subjects that were discussed, off-season nutrition certainly was one of the most interesting. Does anyone remember the 1995 Night of Champions when Dorian guest-posed at roughly 300 lbs? That was nearly unheard of at the time. Many said that he was too fat and out of shape and that would never come be able to come down for the O. Not only did Dorian lose the weight, he crushed his competition. Dorian’s philosophy was that his off-season appearance was inconsequential. What mattered was what he looked like when he stepped on stage. During the off-season, his nutrition centered around two simple factors: total caloric intake and total protein intake. Nothing else mattered

Fucking astonishing how, I could be classified as a kid, and I know more than 99% of the people here. Maybe i feel just weird around here, but I guess surrounding myself with people that typically get “it,” makes me more prone to be astonished when some people just can’t grasp simple concepts.

Fucking astonishing how, I could be classified as a kid, and I know more than 99% of the people here. Maybe i feel just weird around here, but I guess surrounding myself with people that typically get “it,” makes me more prone to be astonished when some people just can’t grasp simple concepts.

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
all of the shenanigans and tomfoolery i’ve been reading in some of these threads lately (and i’m not gonna mention which ones) has gotten me thinking. i’m now going to pose, to anyone who’s listening, a very simple question for your review:

do you think it’s possible that the fundamental premise of bodybuilding has somehow fallen upon deaf ears, or been lost to the sands of time, somehow?

you see, i thought that this whole thing (bodybuilding) was about a guy (preferably you) creating a situation in which he was carrying the most muscle possible while simultaneously carrying the least amount of fat possible. and, please note, the two key words here are “possible” and “simultaneously”.

the word “possible” seems to need to be highlighted because these physical quantities of muscle and fat tissue we’re talking about are obviously going to vary between individuals… and even within the same individual depending on his circumstances.

the word “simultaneously” also seems to need to be highlighted because it’s not only muscular development that makes a person look impressive, or good, or what have you… nor is it only minimal levels of bodyfat. but it is when both of these conditions are met, at the same time, that the whole does become greater than the sum of its parts.

i bring up these points for two reasons.

1.) despite what many of the macho-bullshit-attitude-types i’ve been seeing on here would have you believe, and it’s so completely absurd i should have to point this out that i’m actually embarrassed, NOT EVERYONE IS CAPABLE OF ATTAINING THE AMOUNT OF MUSCLE MASS, AND/OR THE LACK OF BODY FAT, NECESSARY TO BE, OR LOOK LIKE, A PROFESSIONAL BODYBUILDER.

and i’m guessing many of you, like me, haven’t, either… if you had, you would most likely be out engaging in pro-bodybuilder style recreational activities and not screwing around on the internet.

2.) IT DOESN’T FUCKING MATTER HOW “BIG” YOU ARE (OR THINK YOU ARE) ANYWAY… WHAT MATTERS IS HOW GOOD YOU LOOK. and if you don’t believe me, ask arnold how he feels about suffering his only american competition loss at the hands of one frank zane (a guy who arnold dwarfed in “size”, but certainly not in “shape”… on that particular day, anyway.)

just thinkin’ out loud.

happy thanksgiving. [/quote]

I am not sure what you’re getting at, maybe I need to sleep more. To me, bodybuilding is about being better than what you were the day before, and that happens to mean lifting heavier and, yes, having more muscle, than before. This is a lifestyle that involves a tremendous amount of discipline, you have to face the most brutal truths about your limits every day, and force yourself to get past them.

How “good” you look is a subjective thing. In Arnold’s case, the judges deemed him less deserving than Zane in that competition. Note that Arnold did beat Zane in subsequent contests, and he was bigger.

thank you very much for the article on bulking… it was a good read and interesting points were surely raised. like i said, i’m well aware that this type of, for lack of a better word, “yo-yo dieting”, is a commonly accepted practice in pro-bodybuilding… i still have my doubts, though, as to whether or not the approach has any long-term merit for a regular guy of average genetics and no drugs. but i do appreciate the sentiment.

and thank you for the direction to the thread with professor x’s pics, as well. despite the insurmountable chip on his shoulder, i’ll give the guy credit where it’s due: he is a very, very large man. i’m not sure if there are more pics around that i haven’t seen, but if and when he gets down to single digits, i anticipate he’ll be completely untouchable…

we really musn’t forget, though, that professor x’s results are atypical, to say the least. he is surely probably the only person, or only one of a very few people, on this board who has achieved such a level of size (hence his notoriety here). and this is despite the fact that he trains and eats in what can only be called a fairly typical “bodybuilding-esque” fashion. what i mean, here, is that just about everyone i encounter who’s interested in bodybuilding trains using some sort of extended body-part split routine and stuffs their face whenever possible, but, for one reason or another, they don’t look like the professor.

long story short, professor x has alot more in common with a pro-bodybuilder than he does with me (and probably with most of you.) subsequently, using his results as average, normal, or to-be-expected seems to be a somewhat gross distortion of the truth/reality, don’t you think?

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:
thank you very much for the article on bulking… it was a good read and interesting points were surely raised. like i said, i’m well aware that this type of, for lack of a better word, “yo-yo dieting”, is a commonly accepted practice in pro-bodybuilding… i still have my doubts, though, as to whether or not the approach has any long-term merit for a regular guy of average genetics and no drugs. but i do appreciate the sentiment.

and thank you for the direction to the thread with professor x’s pics, as well. despite the insurmountable chip on his shoulder, i’ll give the guy credit where it’s due: he is a very, very large man. i’m not sure if there are more pics around that i haven’t seen, but if and when he gets down to single digits, i anticipate he’ll be completely untouchable…

we really musn’t forget, though, that professor x’s results are atypical, to say the least. he is surely probably the only person, or only one of a very few people, on this board who has achieved such a level of size (hence his notoriety here). and this is despite the fact that he trains and eats in what can only be called a fairly typical “bodybuilding-esque” fashion. what i mean, here, is that just about everyone i encounter who’s interested in bodybuilding trains using some sort of extended body-part split routine and stuffs their face whenever possible, but, for one reason or another, they don’t look like the professor.

long story short, professor x has alot more in common with a pro-bodybuilder than he does with me (and probably with most of you.) subsequently, using his results as average, normal, or to-be-expected seems to be a somewhat gross distortion of the truth/reality, don’t you think?[/quote]

No.

The mentality of people like you is what holds you back. When I see Prof. X, I think, “If he did that, then why can’t I?” Where as you guys justify every excuse to fail. At the end of the day, you fail.

Just remember. Excuses are like assholes. They all stink.