T Nation

TJ Lynch on Bulking Up for Naturals

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
ahhh fuck i’m at my genetic limit after 1.5 years of lifting bro’z. already @ 225 with abs

it’s been real [/quote]

If you’re natural and average height then you’re damn big. If you’ve accomplished that in a year and half you’re gifted.

How tall are you? Is it “semblance of abs” (which can be while not being very lean) or are you very lean or shredded?

[quote]Tom240 wrote:
12% BF is pretty damn lean. That’s got to have some negative effects on progress once you are already legitimitely ‘big’[/quote]

The body works so much better when you are lean. I learned this the hard way. Being fat = put on fat more easily

being lean = put on fat less easily and burn fat more easily and gain muscle more easily. And to top it all off bitches prefer that

[quote]zraw wrote:

The body works so much better when you are lean. I learned this the hard way. Being fat = put on fat more easily

being lean = put on fat less easily and burn fat more easily and gain muscle more easily. And to top it all off bitches prefer that
[/quote]

Exactly! Looking good bro! Keep going!

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]Tom240 wrote:
12% BF is pretty damn lean. That’s got to have some negative effects on progress once you are already legitimitely ‘big’[/quote]

The body works so much better when you are lean. I learned this the hard way. Being fat = put on fat more easily

being lean = put on fat less easily and burn fat more easily and gain muscle more easily. And to top it all off bitches prefer that
[/quote]

This is exactly right on all accounts.

[quote]Matthaeus wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]Tom240 wrote:
12% BF is pretty damn lean. That’s got to have some negative effects on progress once you are already legitimitely ‘big’[/quote]

The body works so much better when you are lean. I learned this the hard way. Being fat = put on fat more easily

being lean = put on fat less easily and burn fat more easily and gain muscle more easily. And to top it all off bitches prefer that
[/quote]

This is exactly right on all accounts. [/quote]

Hopping on the fun-wagon as well here.

ahh, memories

Ha ha ha…we should go back thru the archives some more and see just how many times this exact same thing has been discussed in almost the exact same way.

That Tcell one that Stronghold started went on forever…

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Ha ha ha…we should go back thru the archives some more and see just how many times this exact same thing has been discussed in almost the exact same way.

That Tcell one that Stronghold started went on forever… [/quote]

Then I’m the one who started it all over again. :frowning:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Ha ha ha…we should go back thru the archives some more and see just how many times this exact same thing has been discussed in almost the exact same way.

That Tcell one that Stronghold started went on forever… [/quote]

Then I’m the one who started it all over again. :([/quote]

Lol - hey, we can have it again. It just always ends up the same way…

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
ahhh fuck i’m at my genetic limit after 1.5 years of lifting bro’z. already @ 225 with abs

it’s been real [/quote]

In your original thread that you posted on this site you said that before you began weight training you weighed 180 pounds.

Since then you have put on 50+lbs of pure muscle? In a year and a half as a natty? lololol.

Say you started at a generous 12% BF that would mean you started with 158lbs of LBM and 22lbs of fat. Gaining 50lbs of muscle without gaining one ounce of fat would put you at 230lbs (pretty obvious) while still maintaining 22lbs of fat for a BF% of 9.5%

Are you now 230lbs @ 9.5% as a natty?

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
ahhh fuck i’m at my genetic limit after 1.5 years of lifting bro’z. already @ 225 with abs

it’s been real [/quote]

In your original thread that you posted on this site you said that before you began weight training you weighed 180 pounds.

Since then you have put on 50+lbs of pure muscle? In a year and a half as a natty? lololol.

Say you started at a generous 12% BF that would mean you started with 158lbs of LBM and 22lbs of fat. Gaining 50lbs of muscle without gaining one ounce of fat would put you at 230lbs (pretty obvious) while still maintaining 22lbs of fat for a BF% of 9.5%

Are you now 230lbs @ 9.5% as a natty?[/quote]

lol

um, no

i didn’t mention lbs of muscle brah

i was clearly referring to the genetic potential equation

flattered by the memories though

[quote]swhole milk wrote:

i was clearly referring to the genetic potential equation

[/quote]

When we refer to genetic potential here, we speak of muscle mass gains. Most people can eat their way to a high bodyweight with no weight training.

oh, do we?

thx for clarifying, i thought clothing could factor in, too… you know how some guys look swole in tee’s and stuff

if you actually don’t get it, please refer to page 7. given my height and weight, if I am @ or below 20% bodyfat, I am at my genetic peak according to the equation

thus… my J O K E

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
oh, do we?

thx for clarifying, i thought clothing could factor in, too… you know how some guys look swole in tee’s and stuff

if you actually don’t get it, please refer to page 7. given my height and weight, if I am @ or below 20% bodyfat, I am at my genetic peak according to the equation

thus… my J O K E[/quote]

The equation is going to be less and less accurate the further away from contest condition you get, because as has been noted many times in this thread, one of the key limiting factors of natural BBing is the ability to maintain muscle mass while dieting. You may indeed have ‘broken the calculation’ at 20%+, that doesn’t mean you would still be ahead of the curve for sub 10%, or sub 6%+dried out.

FWIW, I agree with Maiden’s post a page or two back that the 10% calcs seem a tad small, even though I am otherwise fairly in line with the arguments on that side of the debate.

Edit: speaking of that calc seeming small for the 10% mark, it could be that when whoever made his chart of the equation he(by no fault of his own really, it would be pretty impossible to account for) didn’t ‘add back in’ water and glycogen weight. While you do a certain amount of filling out for contest day, it’s certainly not anywhere near what you will add with complete rehydration+restoration of glycogen stores, along with regaining some fat(which then comes with more water). Simply taking the LBM/0.9 doesn’t get you a person’s actual weight @10% bodyfat.

[quote]swhole milk wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]swhole milk wrote:
ahhh fuck i’m at my genetic limit after 1.5 years of lifting bro’z. already @ 225 with abs

it’s been real [/quote]

In your original thread that you posted on this site you said that before you began weight training you weighed 180 pounds.

Since then you have put on 50+lbs of pure muscle? In a year and a half as a natty? lololol.

Say you started at a generous 12% BF that would mean you started with 158lbs of LBM and 22lbs of fat. Gaining 50lbs of muscle without gaining one ounce of fat would put you at 230lbs (pretty obvious) while still maintaining 22lbs of fat for a BF% of 9.5%

Are you now 230lbs @ 9.5% as a natty?[/quote]

lol

um, no

i didn’t mention lbs of muscle brah

i was clearly referring to the genetic potential equation

flattered by the memories though
[/quote]

This entire discussion, save a few posts, have been about gaining 50lbs of muscle mass. Don’t be too flattered, your posting history is in your hub, I just checked it out… Brah

@red04 i agree that it is difficult to hold muscle as one diets naturally, one reason why a linear equation is laughable for such a measurement… i thought the discussion could handle a joke related to that, my sincere apologies

and i also agree about the fluctuations of hydration/glycogen. i see a ± of >/5 lbs regularly

@gregon cool, my post was a joke, sorry for disturbing your gospel lol

^^go ahead and be passive aggressive all you want but you post, joke or not, insinuated that you believed the 50lb muscle gain statement was/is BS.

lol, dude idk why you are upset, but my comment was clearly not directed at you or anything you said.

and my comment… yeah… it really didn’t insinuate that

it insinuated that equation is retarded

perhaps you should revisit page 7 so you can realize this isn’t about you and your fabled 50 lbs

^^Im not upset at all.

lol @ “clearly not directed at you or anything you said.” your post was “clearly” not directed at the equation. It was posted on a page that was purely about the 50lbs of muscle gain discussion so why would it not be read as a comment on that discussion? You did not quote an “equation” post.

Yes your comment did insinuate that, which is more than likely why Brick responded to it in the way that he did (correct me if
I’m wrong brick)

I did read page 7, you posted on page 8 where there was not a single comment on the equation, FYI. Fabled 50lbs? Has anyone been able to produce ONE single example that proves the contrary? I don’t think so.

Again, I’m not upset at all I’m just saying. Maybe you did intend for your comment to be about he equation but just did a subpar job of showing it. If so then that is that.

Estrogen Nation is in full effect.