Truth About Bulking and Dave Tate

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
21

I actually think that having too much bodyfat will make it HARDER to gain muscle. Maybe its just me, but my testosterone levels (or at least perceived levels) are highest when my fat starts dropping some. Maybe its psychological-body image thing. It could also be that excess fat can negatively affect sleep. Also, your body has to do work to process food. I’m not talking about protein poisoning here, but the more substances (unused amino acids, preservatives etc) that your liver and kidneys have to process and clear, the less available it may be to take care of anabolic chemical processes.

My only point is that getting ripped abs does not constitute a lifetime accomplishment that I respect someone for reaching because if done right, it is fast. Gaining muscle tells you something about someone’s life and gym experience.

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
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.

[/quote]

22

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
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."

[/quote]

Good post. Im sick to the back teeth of hearing people say you have to put on a lot of fat to put on a lot of muscle.

When most people say bulking, you know they usually mean that they’re gona be lazy and eat whatevers in site. I reckon Christian got it spot on in that article.

Over the past year i’ve put on somewhere in the region of 10-12 pounds of muscle and maintained a similar bfat%(probably 10-12%) throughout.

23

personally, i just eat as much as hunger tells me to. the stronger and bigger i get, the more my hunger tells me to eat. if i overeat, i get fat; if i undereat, i lose fat and impede hypertrophy/strength. that’s all know. bodybuilding is 10% science, and 90% intuition.

i agree that starting BFP is irrelevant, and that intentional calorie restriction on a bulking program is self-defeating. i’ve always found that bulking first and worrying about shedding fat later is more productive than worrying about fat first. i’ve seen fat dudes make remarkable, hulk-like transformations by bulking first, then shedding fat. i’ve never seen anyone diet down and then get huge; lower BFP means the body tries to hold ground instead of expending energy on growth. that much is scientific fact.

the thing to remember is that these authors are promoting supplements. if your training is off, you’re going to need supplements. if your training is optimal, roids and supplements are a waste of money, bacause you can’t exceed “best results”.

if they’re promoting programs that require supplements to “make it through” or “maximize gain”, what they’re recommending is sub-par, and not likely to produce significant long-term results in real-world scenarios. it’s a business, first and foremost, just like the medical profession. that means selling you a training paradigm that drags out over a long enough period of time for them to make money off of your ignorance.

24

This is definitely an interesting discussion, and I’m always eager to hear other people’s opinions about it, since the only success I’ve had in gaining muscle was to bulk, and then lose the fat afterwards.

However, I really think its important to remember that CT’s article was meant for the “look good nekkid” crowd who like to stare longingly at themselves in the mirror and flex their glutes. If you don’t want to EVER get a little chunky, then you still have a chance of getting bigger, BUT you have to monitor calories, bodyweight, and BF closely or else fail. At least I think that was CT’s point.

Now, those of us who are not going to cry over losing our ripped abs for a few months can just eat a ton and get bigger all around, and then lean out later. Sure, mathematically its not the most efficient way, but it works, and more importantly it allows you to do other things with your life than count calories and measure bodyfat.

But, using Dave Tate to argue for bulking is a bit misleading, seeing as how he NEVER considered aesthetics during his carreer as a powerlifter. Of course, if you take someone who can lift as much as Tate, and make them go on a diet, they are going to look ripped. But that has nothing to do with CT’s article.

Anyhow, I am definitely still going to eat a ton when I want to gain mass, but I still appreciate CT’s article, since it was a new way of looking at bulking.

Of course, with arguments of this nature, the middle ground is usually ignored, even though the most reasonable conclusion is floating around in there. Somewhere between Tate’s 20 year powerlifting bulk phase and the bodybuilder who trembles in fear at gaining more that 0.25 lbs per week is a reasonable bulking strategy.

25

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

Why the hell should we be asking that? While you’re trying to merge economics and weight training/nutritional science there are dudes out there lifting big ass weights, eating big and getting bigger, stronger, and more “jacked” than you.

Bulking for an extended period of time and then cutting is MORE than worth the effort, gaining minimal amounts of lean mass to keep abs IS NOT.

In conclusion, Dave Tate is jacked as fuck, bulking owns, and that article is for former fat boys and lipophobic kids like eliteballa. I’m gonna go eat some pop tarts now.

26

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
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[/quote]

See this is what I don’t get around here. Why do you feel the need to slam a very highly talented and knowledgable coach just because you disagree with him. Set aside for a moment if you agree or disagree, why the total lack of respect? CT doesn’t have to spend his time writing articles and programs for us to use at no cost. While I am sure that he is completely capable of defending his own position, he does spend almost every day of his life training both elite athletes and more common people and gets great results from his way of training people. I personally see exactly what he was saying in the article and have made some great gains since following his advice as have those I train and workout with. This is also my second time around building the body I desire after suffering some injuries that took me out for a few years. I had never even heard of T-Nation or CT back then and build my body up the first time doing the same kinds of things.

I am not sure how old you are, but I would think that if you are anywhere over 30, that you would have already figured out that there is always more than one way to skin a cat. What works best for one person and and their own goals isn’t necessarily the best thing for every body else.

I am personally sticking around the 10% range in order to gain muscle. I am very strict on my eating plan and know exactly what my maintenance level is and how many calories I need to be over in order to gain. I am not sure how everyone else does things, but being in caloric surplus enough to build new muscle and not over so much that I just pack on fat is where I want to be. When I am at 10% I am muscular and fit looking, but not shredded at all. This is what works for me and seeing I still look like I work out keeps me motivated.

I do have a question for you. Do you think that there is a maximum caloric intake that if you go past, your body will no longer be able to build muscle any faster than it already is and will either store the excess calories or get rid of them as waste or do you believe that all the calories that you can possibly take in will keep building muscle and not fat? If there is a ceiling, and I believe that is exactly the point of CT’s article, then what is the point of eating all the excess calories? Sure it takes hard work and considerable effort to figure that out for your individual body and I for one am willing to put forth that effort. I guess the other approach is just eat until you puke and then hope that you are in caloric surplus. Seems to me that it is like either using a sawed off shotgun or using a sniper rifle. Both will get the job done, just one takes more effort and is more precise.

I don’t agree with all the coaches here, but I never slam them and if I did ever write something in disagreement, I would definitely make sure that I do so with respect. Instead, I just do what works for me.

So if you don’t agree, then that’s cool. To each his own. Do what works for you and I hope you get where you are trying to and I will be there cheering you on. We are all part of the Nation and are all trying achieve things greater than those around us for the most part. I hope that everyone here is a critical thinker and not just a part of the mindless herd.

If the traditional bulk is working for you, then more power to you. I just can’t see the point in the disrespect that I see in your post.

And before you even comment. No, I do not have any pictures on my profile. I am 5’10" at 183 @ 8%BF. I dropped below maintenance for a little while because I wasn’t weighing or measuring and the mirror was telling me I was getting bigger, which in terms of muscle I am, but I have readjusted my caloric intake upwards. I started out on my second go around back in February really close to 200 and at 28%BF. So though I have not reached my goal yet of 215 @ 6-7%, I have totally transformed my body and have gained approx. 23lbs of LBM in 10 months. I am very happy with my gains and I will definitely post before, during, and after pictures when I have a finished product to show.

No disrespect intended towards you either, but all the slamming and arguing about the different coaches views gets old.

27

[quote]alownage wrote:

Why the hell should we be asking that? While you’re trying to merge economics and weight training/nutritional science there are dudes out there lifting big ass weights, eating big and getting bigger, stronger, and more “jacked” than you.[/quote]

That’s because for them, it’s more convenient and easier not to think about all the work involved in getting the same muslce mass results, without all the fat they’re gaining.

[quote]
Bulking for an extended period of time and then cutting is MORE than worth the effort, gaining minimal amounts of lean mass to keep abs IS NOT.[/quote]

No one suggested gaining “minimal amounts of lean mass to keep abs”.

Letting yourself get fat while getting big is easier than keeping the fat off while getting just as big. It makes more sence for some who don’t want to be botherd with the extra effort it would take to keep the fat off. The small amount of time it would take them to get the fat off is worth it to them.

[quote]
In conclusion, Dave Tate is jacked as fuck, bulking owns, and that article is for former fat boys and lipophobic kids like eliteballa. I’m gonna go eat some pop tarts now. [/quote]

Dave being jacked doesn’t prove that someone can’t get just as big without the fat gain. It wasn’t worth it to him to try and keep his fat low while POWERLIFTING. It would take extra, unnecessary effort for him to do so. His primary goals weren’t aesthetics, NOR were they large muscles. His musculature was a byproduct of his powerlifting training.

He trained to move more weight, ate a ton and that did make him huge. That doesn’t mean it’s the only way to get there.

Bottom line, getting fat while bulking takes less effort in the kitchen than staying relatively lean while bulking, and the same amount of muscle can be made with both routs.

28

[quote]alownage wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
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.

Why the hell should we be asking that?
[/quote]Wow! You seriously think it is better to pursue bulking than it is to pursue maximum muscle gain? Seriously, you are missing the point, gaining weight is not the point, gaining muscle is. Period, if you argue that then you just are not worth talking to. Focus on muscle, not fat. If increasing calories produces more muscle and you also put on more fat, great, if increasing even more produces no more muscle, then it will all be stored as fat. If that makes you happy, then power to you. How do we know we are putting on max muscle? Simple, are strength is going up at it’s fastest rate. How do we know that? Easy, keep a log if it isn’t to complex for you.[quote]

While you’re trying to merge economics and weight training/nutritional science there are dudes out there lifting big ass weights, eating big and getting bigger, stronger, and more “jacked” than you.
[/quote]Do you really think that we cannot learn anything from other disciplines? Do you think that reason doesnt apply to training?

As for the more “jacked” than you comment, that really makes me wonder how smart you are. You don’t know dumb-ass.[quote]

Bulking for an extended period of time and then cutting is MORE than worth the effort, gaining minimal amounts of lean mass to keep abs IS NOT.
[/quote]I agree, and if you read my post and understood it, which may be asking a lot, you’d know that I agree.[quote]

In conclusion, Dave Tate is jacked as fuck,
[/quote]yes he is[quote]
bulking owns,
[/quote]Nope, gaining muscle owns, and you focusing on weight gain over muscle gain is retarded.[quote]
and that article is for former fat boys and lipophobic kids like eliteballa.
[/quote]I thought is was for the T-Nation readers.[quote]
I’m gonna go eat some pop tarts now. [/quote]
I hope they make you really strong.

29

[quote]Tbone2005 wrote:
See this is what I don’t get around here. Why do you feel the need to slam a very highly talented and knowledgable coach just because you disagree with him. [/quote]

Who did I slam? Did I say CT is not a good coach or that he doesn’t know what he was talking about? Nope. I said ONE article (just one) was off-base.

Is DISAGEEEING with someone the same thing as a personal attack?

30

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
Was my example of Stan McQuay not specific enough?[/quote]

Speak of the devil! Stan McQuay actually said that he would have been a pro sooner had he not been so worried about staying lean year round. Did you miss that, or do you only hear what you want to hear?

31

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
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]

I thought for sure you’d disagree just to be acrimonoius. Nice move. If you and me agree on something, then there must be something to that position.

(Been reading your blog, btw. Your writing has improved a lot lately.)

32

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Tbone2005 wrote:
See this is what I don’t get around here. Why do you feel the need to slam a very highly talented and knowledgable coach just because you disagree with him.

Who did I slam? Did I say CT is not a good coach or that he doesn’t know what he was talking about? Nope. I said ONE article (just one) was off-base.

Is DISAGEEEING with someone the same thing as a personal attack? [/quote]

It seemed like disrespect to me, so if that is not what you intended, maybe try to be overly nice as you write and you will probably strike the right tone. I have to do that myself.

So how about an answer for my question from you?

33

I’ll tell you guys what. I’m 42 years old and am presently eating “A LOT” in an effort to make gains. That effort is paying off. Most of the guys in this thread so far I’m pretty sure are much closer to their prime muscle building years than I am.

You keep fretting over being soft while you train and I won’t. I won’t get “fat” either, but I’m just not going to worry about being soft for a while. We’ll come back here in a year and see who made gains and who didn’t.

CT is a very smart guy who have a lot of respect for, but the bulking article was wrong because it took guys like are in this thread and produced in them a mindset where they declare “10-12 pounds in a year” as if it were triumphant proof of the truth of staying lean while gaining size. Sorry elliot, but you could’ve probably gained twice that had you just not concerned yourself with softening up in the meantime.

I have gained just about 15 pounds lean in 4 months less at my age. I am not “FAT”, but I’m not cut either. That’s just how it works. To gain you have to eat more than you use and I’ll stick with overshooting by a bit to maximize my gains over worrying about “looking good nekkid” every damn minute of my life.

Does anybody even understand any more the idea that the bigger you are the more of you there is to chew off the fat when the time comes? Do what you want. I’d rather look REALLY good nekkid five years sooner than take forever to put on some meat.

34

[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
alownage wrote:

Why the hell should we be asking that? While you’re trying to merge economics and weight training/nutritional science there are dudes out there lifting big ass weights, eating big and getting bigger, stronger, and more “jacked” than you.

That’s because for them, it’s more convenient and easier not to think about all the work involved in getting the same muslce mass results, without all the fat they’re gaining.[/quote]

Excuse me while I cry bullshit. CT also BULKED UP and was MUCH HEAVIER in the past. While you argue what “might be”, I will continue with what IS. The moment those afraid of ever going above 10% body fat start passing me up in terms of strength of size gains in majority, then it will be time to re-evaluate. We are not seeing that in majority or even in minority outside of one or two people being pointed out when it is a fact that no matter the rule, genetics will always allow an anomaly to break it, much like Dexter Jackson never did cardio until recently. Does that mean most people could get away with that and look the way he does?

Likewise, no one is talking about becoming obese. When I look around the gym, the numbers of truly large bodybuilders has decreased drastically. Why would I follow what the smallest are doing? Why would I listen to what a trainer says while ignoring what they actually DID to look the way they do?

CT was questioned in his own article. This has nothing to do with attacking him as an individual.

I personally am sick of theory being discussed as if real world results are the secondary issue. We can talk theory forever, but if those following it all have arms under 16-17", why would I need to listen to it?

35

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
SWR-1240 wrote:
Was my example of Stan McQuay not specific enough?

Speak of the devil! Stan McQuay actually said that he would have been a pro sooner had he not been so worried about staying lean year round. Did you miss that, or do you only hear what you want to hear?

[/quote]

I’ve mentioned that before but I also realize how many people ignored it in favor of listening to only what confirmed what they want to believe.

Stan was trying to make a living by getting his face in the media…thus the need to stay lean at all times and “photo ready”. If he himself admits that it may have held him back, how can people ignore that?

36

[quote]Tbone2005 wrote:
I do have a question for you. Do you think that there is a maximum caloric intake that if you go past, your body will no longer be able to build muscle any faster than it already is and will either store the excess calories or get rid of them as waste or do you believe that all the calories that you can possibly take in will keep building muscle and not fat?[/quote]

It varies based on the person. Some guys can eat like hogs and keep gaining muscle. Others will gain so much fat that it’s not worth it.

Of course, I’ve never met a person who can turn every excess calorie he eats into muscle. I often joked that this would be a nice “super hero” power to have.

So the idea is: What works better long term? That is what building a great body should look towards, right?

A lot of guys here think they are Men’s Health cover models, and thus must protect their abs at all costs. Why they have such an inflated self-image is a mystery to me. If those abs/physique were that great, they’d be models, right? But they’re not, so why do they act like models?

37

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Stan was trying to make a living by getting his face in the media…thus the need to stay lean at all times and “photo ready”. If he himself admits that it may have held him back, how can people ignore that?[/quote]

Because…uh…

ABS BABY! ABS! IT’S ALL ABOUT THE ABS!

This thread is officially retarded.

38

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’ll tell you guys what. I’m 42 years old and am presently eating “A LOT” in an effort to make gains. That effort is paying off. Most of the guys in this thread so far I’m pretty sure are much closer to their prime muscle building years than I am.

You keep fretting over being soft while you train and I won’t. I won’t get “fat” either, but I’m just not going to worry about being soft for a while. We’ll come back here in a year and see who made gains and who didn’t.

CT is a very smart guy who have a lot of respect for, but the bulking article was wrong because it took guys like are in this thread and produced in them a mindset where they declare “10-12 pounds in a year” as if it were triumphant proof of the truth of staying lean while gaining size. Sorry elliot, but you could’ve probably gained twice that had you just not concerned yourself with softening up in the meantime.

I have gained just about 15 pounds lean in 4 months less at my age. I am not “FAT”, but I’m not cut either. That’s just how it works. To gain you have to eat more than you use and I’ll stick with overshooting by a bit to maximize my gains over worrying about “looking good nekkid” every damn minute of my life.

Does anybody even understand any more the idea that the bigger you are the more of you there is to chew off the fat when the time comes? Do what you want. I’d rather look REALLY good nekkid five years sooner than take forever to put on some meat.[/quote]

I’m with you most of the way here Tiribulus, except when you say you gained about 15 in 4 months. You may very well have, but until you cut you won’t really know. What seems like 15 of muscle may have more fat in it than you think.

And to ensure my intent, I’m not in the stay lean camp, I’m in the build muscle camp. I do get fairly soft when I do it and gain a fair amount of fat. My whole stand is that there is a point of diminishing returns. There is a ceiling on how much muscle one can build.

By the way I’ve earned my way into the above 35 forum and you’re right, I don’t care too much about the extra fat at all.

39

It was very obvious that CT’s article was geared towards long term trained individuals and not your average Newbie Gym Rat.

40

[quote]jbodzin wrote:
It was very obvious that CT’s article was geared towards long term trained individuals and not your average Newbie Gym Rat.[/quote]

Apparently it wasn’t obvious to all the newbie gym rats.