T Nation

Truth About Bulking and Dave Tate

Add Dave Tate to the list of people who didn’t believe the “truth” about bulking. Like the very author of the “true” article, Mr. Tate carried around an appreciable amount of bodyfat while he built he physique. He has now lost that weight and looks better than anyone who will ever decide to “cut” when weighing 150 pounds.

The Truth Is Out There:

http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=47567&tid=124

http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=47568&tid=124

Good idea taking this to it’s own thread.
I just responded to your post in Dave’s thread:

"CT never said that was the ONLY way. You don’t think Stan from T-Nation’s super heroes is huge? Many bodybuilders don’t get overly fat when bulking, many do.

Dave wasn’t bodybuilding for aesthetic purposes when he was building his body with powerlifting.

Sounds like you didn’t understand that article."

The TRUTH is that Dave was lifting to be stronger in all three powerlifting lifts for a long time. He wasn’t concerned about his fat gains, and some of his fat gains probably helped with some of his lifts.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Add Dave Tate to the list of people who didn’t believe the “truth” about bulking.
[/quote]So you’ve talked with Dave, and he said that Christian is incorrect with his article?[quote]

Like the very author of the “true” article, Mr. Tate carried around an appreciable amount of bodyfat while he built he physique.
[/quote]And were they not both strength athletes at the time?[quote]

He has now lost that weight and looks better than anyone who will ever decide to “cut” when weighing 150 pounds.
[/quote]Absolutely true, one should cut at 150 pounds if they are 3 feet tall.[quote]

The Truth Is Out There:

http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=47567&tid=124

http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=47568&tid=124[/quote]

Is it not possible that the reason Dave “fucking” Tate is huge is because Dave “fucking” Tate is incredibly strong? Or maybe strength and hypertrophy aren’t related? I think that just maybe when you can bench press close to three times you body weight that you may have stimulated growth in the chest, shoulders and triceps. Maybe it is true for squatting close to four times your body weight as well, that it may build some legs.

Roland

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
Sounds like you didn’t understand that article."[/quote]

Sure I did. If you’re over 10% bodyfat, you shouldn’t bulk. That’s how the article is being interpreted, and CT has not offered any clarification. So that interpretation stands.

Dave Tate is yet another incredible physical specimen who is incredible precisely because he didn’t freak out when his bodyfat exceeded 10%. He is an example demonstrating the falsity of the article’s premise.

I am awaiting examples of people who started out small and ended up big but who did not carry around an appreciable amount of bodyfat during the interim.

Please cite specific examples.

On a related note… Here is something that shocked me: I had injuries and didn’t follow lifting or T-Mag for around 4 years. When I returned, I saw a lot of familiar faces. Almost NONE of them had gained any appreciable size. This led me to question the “don’t get fat while bulking” dogma.

After all, I care about RESULTS, not theory. If everyone following a given theory (that looks good on paper) looks the same year-after-year, then I’ll try something else. I want to look better every year.

Following the “truth” article is not going to make people better, and I’m willing to predict that 5 years from now, most people who followed the “true” advice will look the same.

[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Roland[/quote]

My point was simple: As a rule, for a person to look incredible when he diets diet, he must have first gained an appreciable amount of fat. Do you disagree? If so, show me all of these jacked guys who went from 6’ 150 pounds to 240 pounds without ever going above 10% (or even 14%) bodyfat. I’m waiting…

[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Add Dave Tate to the list of people who didn’t believe the “truth” about bulking.
So you’ve talked with Dave, and he said that Christian is incorrect with his article?[/quote]

Read about “Dee”:
http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=46988&tid=124

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
SWR-1240 wrote:
Sounds like you didn’t understand that article."

Sure I did. [/quote]
I still don’t think you did.

Was my example of Stan McQuay not specific enough?

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:

Sure I did. If you’re over 10% bodyfat, you shouldn’t bulk. That’s how the article is being interpreted, and CT has not offered any clarification. So that interpretation stands.

Dave Tate is yet another incredible physical specimen who is incredible precisely because he didn’t freak out when his bodyfat exceeded 10%. He is an example demonstrating the falsity of the article’s premise.

I am awaiting examples of people who started out small and ended up big but who did not carry around an appreciable amount of bodyfat during the interim.

Please cite specific examples.

On a related note… Here is something that shocked me: I had injuries and didn’t follow lifting or T-Mag for around 4 years. When I returned, I saw a lot of familiar faces. Almost NONE of them had gained any appreciable size. This led me to question the “don’t get fat while bulking” dogma.

After all, I care about RESULTS, not theory. If everyone following a given theory (that looks good on paper) looks the same year-after-year, then I’ll try something else. I want to look better every year.

Following the “truth” article is not going to make people better, and I’m willing to predict that 5 years from now, most people who followed the “true” advice will look the same.[/quote]

I never knew about the whole bulking idealogy before I came here two years ago, and it was Professor X that drilled it into my head that fat gain was a necessary part, and eating 3500 calories a day might just be a good thing.

It’s probably why I gained almost thirty pounds from last August to now…so for once, CALaw, I’m with you.

I would have never made any progress otherwise.

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
SWR-1240 wrote:
Sounds like you didn’t understand that article."

Sure I did.
I still don’t think you did.

I am awaiting examples of people who started out small and ended up big but who did not carry around an appreciable amount of bodyfat during the interim.

Please cite specific examples.

Was my example of Stan McQuay not specific enough?[/quote]

One example? One example of an obviously genetically blessed lifter who’s taken his lifting career seriously for most of his life?

I honestly, despite what many believe, think that Mcquay has used gear in the past, like most people his size.

There are probably a few others genetic freaks out there who stay lean as hell all year round, and still make great gains. But for the average man, it’s just not gunna work.

Now I’m not saying everyone has to balloon up to 300lbs, but staying ripped all year round is deffinately not going to help you look like that.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
My point was simple: As a rule, for a person to look incredible when he diets diet, he must have first gained an appreciable amount of fat. Do you disagree?
[/quote]It isn’t that I disagree, I think that focusing on fat is an error. It isn’t the only, or even best way to train, but I think it is more productive to focus on gaining strength rather than on gaining weight. The strategy would be to design the program for what ever rep ranges you wish and to lift for strength increases at those rep ranges on those lifts. To do so, we need to increase calories. If we find in the first while that we increased calories over maintenance by x amount and got stronger by y amount, then that is our baseline of success. If we double our excess calories (calories x above maintenance) and find that our strength increased at the same rate as before, the extra calories then added nothing to our goals. All they did was make us unnecessarily fatter.[quote]

If so, show me all of these jacked guys who went from 6’ 150 pounds to 240 pounds without ever going above 10% (or even 14%) body-fat. I’m waiting…[/quote]

I freely admit that I don’t know how most jacked guys got there. I will also say that you are probably correct in assuming that most got there by going above 10%, maybe much higher. That doesn’t prove it is necessary or even more effective though.

Also, if I cannot show you one who did it without going past 10% doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, or even that it doesn’t happen frequently. All it means is that I didn’t measure many people’s body-fat % while they got jacked, but either did you. That is an irrelevant point that lacks reason.

In the end I believe we are asking the wrong question, instead of asking “Is it better to aggressively bulk to gain muscle, or go slow?” We should be asking “What produces the most muscle with the least fat gained?”

The study of economics can help us here. The point of diminishing returns is the point that the added effort gives us less results than the effort is worth. When talking about gaining muscle and looking jacked, I think we both agree that jacked means huge and ripped. So the optimum gain of muscle would be the one that ends up producing jacked the fastest.

Let’s assume that we can lose about two pounds of fat a week consistently (fill in your own number, it doesn’t affect the argument). If we gain 1 pound of fat for 1 pound of muscle, and we gained 40 pounds of muscle over two years, then it will take two years and 20 weeks to get jacked. If we gain 3 pounds of fat for 1 pound of muscle and we gain 40 pounds of muscle over two years, it will take two years plus 60 weeks to get jacked. Now if we can gain 1 pound of fat for 3 pounds of muscle, and we gain 40 pounds over two years, it will take us two years and 7 weeks to get jacked.

The only argument against the above is that the example is too simple, that at the higher fat to muscle ratios the muscle will go on faster than the low, thus the two years wouldn’t be the case for each example. First, there is not much evidence for this, but who cares, science doesn’t lead, results do. Second, I think you would be correct to argue this, which is why we should eat only enough to maximally gain in strength, by doing so we maximize our muscle gain and accept what ever fat gain that comes with it.

If we accept that strategy, which has worked for me and others by the way, we will focus on what works, not on a useless debate about bulking rates.

For me, I didn’t go up past around 12% while doing this. I’d go up for about a year, then cut for a month or two. I might have been able to go for say two or three years and would have gotten higher than 12%, but it would have simple taken two or three times as long to cut. The results are the same. An added benefit of cutting once a year or so, is the body gets a break and looks better for more time.

Roland

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Read about “Dee”:
http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=46988&tid=124
[/quote]

Funny as hell, thanks!

Where did the article say that Dee needed to gain fat? It didn’t, it said Dee needed to gain weight to get stronger.

Roland

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
I am awaiting examples of people who started out small and ended up big but who did not carry around an appreciable amount of bodyfat during the interim.

Please cite specific examples.
[/quote]

See Stan McQuay in the powerful images section. He says he’s a hardgainer, but even so, he’s an example of a good physique without ever being overly fat.

[quote]Scott aka Rice wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
I am awaiting examples of people who started out small and ended up big but who did not carry around an appreciable amount of bodyfat during the interim.

Please cite specific examples.

See Stan McQuay in the powerful images section. He says he’s a hardgainer, but even so, he’s an example of a good physique without ever being overly fat.[/quote]

Stan is a great example, but giving examples are irrelevant, they don’t prove anything. Neither you, Law, myself or anyone can show you an uncaught criminal, but they surely exist. To say that you cannot show me one, so they don’t exist is pointless. It adds nothing to the discussion.

newbies need to come here with flame resistant clothing, this thread may be the next best one that it is very advisable to enter with urine protection. This pissing match is going to be GREAT!!

Perhaps the main unwritten message of the Dave Tate articles is that muscle building is a multi year process, but fat loss is fast if you do it right.

So, you don’t think that if you’re eating ABOVE your maintenance calories, there’s any way to continue to build muscle at your body’s genetic maximum while only putting on very little fat?

I think if you’re working out hard enough, AND you’re eating enough above maintenance calories to give your body what it needs to grow muscle at YOUR BODY’S maximum rate, any more calories will be stored as fat.

The only reason it seems necessary to gain some fat is because nobody can get that precise with their calories, and the extra fat gain is acceptable.

Those who put a lot of fat on while bulking are just too lazy to figure out and prepare the right amount of calories, or too lazy to workout hard enough, myself included.

And just because the majority of the people do something or don’t do something, doesn’t make it right or wrong.

One’s body (naturally) can only synthesis so much protein with the right training and nutrition, no matter how much food you give it. Any more than what’s necessary to maximize your body’s ability is going to be stored as fat, and that extra fat storage isn’t going to help get you more muscle.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Perhaps the main unwritten message of the Dave Tate articles is that muscle building is a multi year process, but fat loss is fast if you do it right.[/quote]

Very good point. But it still remains that if we monitor strength gains related to excess calories, we won’t ever get as fat as if we didn’t.

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Add Dave Tate to the list of people who didn’t believe the “truth” about bulking.
So you’ve talked with Dave, and he said that Christian is incorrect with his article?

Read about “Dee”:
http://asp.elitefts.com/qa/default.asp?qid=46988&tid=124

[/quote]

Is that a true story?