question about muscle growth

[StrongIslander,NY]

I currently weigh 145 at 5 ft 4inch. i am approaching the 185-200lbs territory with my anchor lifts of squats and DL. I eat 2550 calories so my weight hasnt been growing predictably . ex: gain 5 lose 3. i find it very difficult to stuff my face am drinking whole milk every meal roughly 1/2 gallon per day.

My question is as i reach 1.3 to 1.5x BW in these lifts will my body kick in and grow? i havent grown much just got denser and thicker. i'm just here waiting to explode into muscular definition. at what point does muscle mass doing 5x5 routine kick in 2x BW 3x BW?

[tescott]

Your problem isn't the weight your not lifting, but the food your not eating. And who's doing a 5x5?

[Mr.City]

Do you happen to post on bb.com? This sounds like that type of question.

[StrongIslander,NY]

classic strength routine used by reg park and many others.

shouldnt more of load increase size? because body has to adapt to the new stress. so when does the majority of growth kick in? i know to continue to grow calories need to be increased but wouldnt adaption kick in this growth and thus allow me to consume more?

[Mr.City]

As your weight goes up, so does the calorie surplus needed to gain weight.

[anti]

Eating enough to grow is not and, for many people never will be, easy. You're going to have to force yourself to eat big to get big. You won't just magically start to eat more all of a sudden.

Seriously. Training is the easy part. It's getting enough rest and food in you that's the hard part.

[radiator41]

...shouldnt more of load increase size? because body has to adapt to the new stress. so when does the majority of growth kick in?

Yes, it kicks in when you start eating double what you're eating now.


i know to continue to grow calories need to be increased...

So... increase your calorie consumption...

[nisora33]

I currently weigh 145 at 5 ft 4inch. i am approaching the 185-200lbs territory with my anchor lifts of squats and DL. I eat 2550 calories so my weight hasnt been growing predictably . ex: gain 5 lose 3. i find it very difficult to stuff my face am drinking whole milk every meal roughly 1/2 gallon per day.

My question is as i reach 1.3 to 1.5x BW in these lifts will my body kick in and grow? i havent grown much just got denser and thicker. i'm just here waiting to explode into muscular definition. at what point does muscle mass doing 5x5 routine kick in 2x BW 3x BW?


You CANNOT grow unless you're putting the energy inside you to make that happen.

It's the 2nd law of thermodynamics, okay? Any system (in this case, your body) will be in equilibrium if the energy flowing in equals the amount going out. A system will decrease in size if the energy going out is greater than that which is flowing in. Lastly, and most importantly for you, a system (again in this case your body) cannot grow in size unless the energy coming in is greater than the energy flowing out.

You're not growing because you're not eating enough. End of fucking story.

Unfortunately for all of us, the conditions which are responsible for muscle growth are the same ones that are responsible for the accumulation of fat: overfeeding. Tough shit, that's how it is. Now, go eat and don't post back about gaining size again until you've done what you know you need to.

-Stacey

[nisora33]

Rip has said to make it your job to eat three huge meals a day (meat should be included, and lots of it) supplemented with a gallon of whole milk. He also advises visiting an all-you-can-eat buffet once a week and trying to close it down. Do this. No excuses.

-S.

[Cmanuel]

2500 calories is not enough. I was consuming that many calories per day, I would be losing weight . . . .

[BryanM]

Triple what you started with.

[msingh]

2500 calories is not enough. I was consuming that many calories per day, I would be losing weight . . . .

That sounds like an average meal for me, not a days worth of eating. You skinny bastard up the calories, 70sbig.com will fill your head with ideas on crazy things, make sure to visit there. But keep lifting heavy and get your sleep too, no missed workouts or you're a pussy.

[StrongIslander,NY]

ok ok ok. higher caloric intake it is.
i'm not lookin to be body beautiful at this point just grow. i realize you need to eat more to gain but i was under the impression enough weight bound stimulus would some how turn on a catalyst to turn on extra hunger stimuli that out of necessity you'd just eat more.

my weight has gone up and i'm more or less filling in my frame from skinny to looking average. i'm just finding it difficult to grow beyond average build.
like if you filled a half deflated ball im now at proper weight/size.

so if i get 3 good squares plus snacks and get like 3000 calories and drink 1/2 gallon -3/4 gallon that'll be another 1500-1800 so i'll grow=being able to lift more?

[radiator41]

Yes, but there is a reason that it is called GOMAD. ONE WHOLE GALLON OF (whole) MILK PER DAY. In addition to the 3 or 4 large meals a day that you should be consuming. Work up to it gradually just like your weight training.

[Cmanuel]

When I bulk I throw caution to the wind and eat every possible thing under the sun. I'm not one to advocate eating "ultra pure zen clean organic natural" food. When I bulk, I'm just looking for the most calories for the least money. 1 Gal whole milk a day does the trick. Oh and taco bell doesn't hurt either.

[Gary Gibson]

When I bulk I throw caution to the wind and eat every possible thing under the sun. I'm not one to advocate eating "ultra pure zen clean organic natural" food. When I bulk, I'm just looking for the most calories for the least money. 1 Gal whole milk a day does the trick. Oh and taco bell doesn't hurt either.

Testify!!!

[Bergie]

When I bulk I throw caution to the wind and eat every possible thing under the sun. I'm not one to advocate eating "ultra pure zen clean organic natural" food. When I bulk, I'm just looking for the most calories for the least money. 1 Gal whole milk a day does the trick. Oh and taco bell doesn't hurt either.

I agree fully. This is my new favorite midday fast food snack.

Wendy's Triple Baconator and 3 milks

1,696 calories
100g fat
81g carbs
114g protein

I'm getting hungry now!

[Benthic]

<snip>
so if i get 3 good squares plus snacks and get like 3000 calories and drink 1/2 gallon -3/4 gallon that'll be another 1500-1800 so i'll grow=being able to lift more?

I'm relatively new to the SS program myself, but I'm growing pretty steadily at about 5lbs a week. In order to do that I'm eating about 4500 calories a day which, based on what I've read here and on 70sbig.com, is on the low side.

Brian

[StrongIslander,NY]

ok. so far today

breakfast
24 0z slurpy cup filled with cow juice
2 packets maple brown sugar instant oatmeal
2 pcs jewish rye bread toasted
120z oj

snack at work
hot green tea 12 oz
1 cream of wheat packet

2pm lunch

dollar menu 3 chez burgrs
1 small fry
at home 1 240z milk

dinner is usually

meat
veggie
starch like rice potato
24 oz milk

7-10pm

2 240z glasses of milk
10 +cookies or
potato chips munchos
or tostitos

[nisora33]

ok. so far today

breakfast
24 0z slurpy cup filled with cow juice
2 packets maple brown sugar instant oatmeal
2 pcs jewish rye bread toasted
120z oj

snack at work
hot green tea 12 oz
1 cream of wheat packet

2pm lunch

dollar menu 3 chez burgrs
1 small fry
at home 1 240z milk

dinner is usually

meat
veggie
starch like rice potato
24 oz milk

7-10pm

2 240z glasses of milk
10 +cookies or
potato chips munchos
or tostitos

Eat meat at every meal, and every snack if possible, or at the very least, a cheap whey protein shake with whole milk at snack time will do. And nobody here is going to cut you any slack until you get a full gallon of milk everyday.

-S.

[JCavin]

The gallon of milk really isn't as hard as most people make it out to be.

All you have to do is drink a tall glass every 1-2 hours throughout the day and you'll finish it easy.

[strongdaniel]

ok. so far today

breakfast
24 0z slurpy cup filled with cow juice
2 packets maple brown sugar instant oatmeal
2 pcs jewish rye bread toasted
120z oj

snack at work
hot green tea 12 oz
1 cream of wheat packet

2pm lunch

dollar menu 3 chez burgrs
1 small fry
at home 1 240z milk

dinner is usually

meat
veggie
starch like rice potato
24 oz milk

7-10pm

2 240z glasses of milk
10 +cookies or
potato chips munchos
or tostitos

Better. You're snack at work needs, meat and cheese, milk or preferably both. You need to drink your whole gallon. Consider a gallon of whole milk
the hurdle you have to jump over. You can jump over that hurdle and exceed a gallon and that would be awesome. Fail to overtake the hurdle and experience the pain of defeat.

You can do this. Eyes on the prize.

[Koalala]

Don't stuff yourself like some of these guys do.
You will get Fat, and being fat sucks.
Just eat 500 Calories above your needs and you will be fine.

[nisora33]

Don't stuff yourself like some of these guys do.
You will get Fat, and being fat sucks.
Just eat 500 Calories above your needs and you will be fine.

There is a difference between gaining fat and getting fat on a strength training plan that has you adding weight to most of your lifts almost every workout. You have missed this subtle point.

You fail. No points awarded. Go back to your lonely troll dungeon of fail and eat rice cakes until you come up with a better troll plan.

[JCavin]

If you follow the program you won't get fat.

Though I guess that depends on your definition. If by fat you mean you won't have a six pack...then, yeah.

I would read this article from 70sbig.com about eating. It's awesome and inspiring.

http://70sbig.com/?m=20091007

[Gary Gibson]

Don't stuff yourself like some of these guys do.
You will get Fat, and being fat sucks.
Just eat 500 Calories above your needs and you will be fine.

I normally try to avoid feeding the trolls...and I promised myself I wouldn't get worked up into a froth on message boards...but I just can't help myself right now.

This "500 kilocalories above maintenance" shit has to stop. It's the sort of random number that got pulled out of context and has been repeated so many times that people just believe it's true.

I keep yelling at the top of my internet lungs: "Things change as you get stronger." One of the things that changes is your rate of progression. You have some undetermined genetic limit, and as you get closer to it, the rate at which you approach it diminishes.

When you start, and if you work hard, you can gain 50 lbs of muscle and some fat in just a few months along with well over 100 lbs on your squat. This is not going to occur if you just do "500 calories (actually kilocalories) over maintenance."

Things will change as you get stronger. Your rate of improvement will slow. But your baseline metabolic needs are going to be much greater when you are a 200-lb athlete as opposed to the 150-lb weak, useless novice you used to be. E'en so as a weakling novice trying to become a strong athlete, you are going to need thousands of kilocalories above baseline in order to fuel your very hard squatting sessions, recover and grow. Thousands.

Even when a hard-squatting newbie is done with his first few months of explosive growth, he will probably still need way in excess of "500 above" his new baseline if he plans to be, ya know, athletic.

Those of you who are getting fatter instead of stronger aren't working hard enough. Squats hurt and they hurt even if you do them properly and even a perfectly executed squat will feel like it's about to damage something you really need when it gets heavy enough. So I'm not surprised that there are a number of crybabies out there who think a gallon of Nature's perfect mammal growth formula each day is too much. They're not working hard enough and adding weight to their squats so excess calories they eat become lard. That's when they trot out the "500 above" number and accuse GOMAD of making them and others fat.

[JCavin]

I normally try to avoid feeding the trolls...and I promised myself I wouldn't get worked up into a froth on message boards...but I just can't help myself right now.

This "500 kilocalories above maintenance" shit has to stop. It's the sort of random number that got pulled out of context and has been repeated so many times that people just believe it's true.

I keep yelling at the top of my internet lungs: "Things change as you get stronger." One of the things that changes is your rate of progression. You have some undetermined genetic limit, and as you get closer to it, the rate at which you approach it diminishes.

When you start, and if you work hard, you can gain 50 lbs of muscle and some fat in just a few months along with well over 100 lbs on your squat. This is not going to occur if you just do "500 calories (actually kilocalories) over maintenance."

Things will change as you get stronger. Your rate of improvement will slow. But your baseline metabolic needs are going to be much greater when you are a 200-lb athlete as opposed to the 150-lb weak, useless novice you used to be. E'en so as a weakling novice trying to become a strong athlete, you are going to need thousands of kilocalories above baseline in order to fuel your very hard squatting sessions, recover and grow. Thousands.

Even when a hard-squatting newbie is done with his first few months of explosive growth, he will probably still need way in excess of "500 above" his new baseline if he plans to be, ya know, athletic.

Those of you who are getting fatter instead of stronger aren't working hard enough. Squats hurt and they hurt even if you do them properly and even a perfectly executed squat will feel like it's about to damage something you really need when it gets heavy enough. So I'm not surprised that there are a number of crybabies out there who think a gallon of Nature's perfect mammal growth formula each day is too much. They're not working hard enough and adding weight to their squats so excess calories they eat become lard. That's when they trot out the "500 above" number and accuse GOMAD of making them and others fat.


+1

What he said.

[coldfire]

Don't stuff yourself like some of these guys do.
You will get Fat, and being fat sucks.
Just eat 500 Calories above your needs and you will be fine.

This is a good first post, troll. Are you msingh's friend?

[StrongIslander,NY]

You fail. No points awarded. Go back to your lonely troll dungeon of fail and eat rice cakes until you come up with a better troll plan.

your fucking funny for a girl!!! you should get ur own sitcom

[blowdpanis]

I normally try to avoid feeding the trolls...and I promised myself I wouldn't get worked up into a froth on message boards...but I just can't help myself right now.

This "500 kilocalories above maintenance" shit has to stop. It's the sort of random number that got pulled out of context and has been repeated so many times that people just believe it's true.

I keep yelling at the top of my internet lungs: "Things change as you get stronger." One of the things that changes is your rate of progression. You have some undetermined genetic limit, and as you get closer to it, the rate at which you approach it diminishes.

When you start, and if you work hard, you can gain 50 lbs of muscle and some fat in just a few months along with well over 100 lbs on your squat. This is not going to occur if you just do "500 calories (actually kilocalories) over maintenance."

Things will change as you get stronger. Your rate of improvement will slow. But your baseline metabolic needs are going to be much greater when you are a 200-lb athlete as opposed to the 150-lb weak, useless novice you used to be. E'en so as a weakling novice trying to become a strong athlete, you are going to need thousands of kilocalories above baseline in order to fuel your very hard squatting sessions, recover and grow. Thousands.

Even when a hard-squatting newbie is done with his first few months of explosive growth, he will probably still need way in excess of "500 above" his new baseline if he plans to be, ya know, athletic.

Those of you who are getting fatter instead of stronger aren't working hard enough. Squats hurt and they hurt even if you do them properly and even a perfectly executed squat will feel like it's about to damage something you really need when it gets heavy enough. So I'm not surprised that there are a number of crybabies out there who think a gallon of Nature's perfect mammal growth formula each day is too much. They're not working hard enough and adding weight to their squats so excess calories they eat become lard. That's when they trot out the "500 above" number and accuse GOMAD of making them and others fat.

This sounds nice and all, but there is a fair amount of research looking at the effects of overfeeding on p-ratio (i.e. one's tendency to put on either lean or non-lean mass when overfeeding), and most of the factors controlling it are actually out of our hands (i.e. can be chalked up to the same genetics which you seem aware of that is so responsible for athletic performance). Read the following:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/calorie-partitioning-part-1.html

The actual truth is that some people will thrive on GOMAD and stuffing their faces, some other people will add massive amounts of fat relative to muscle gain no matter how hard they work, and most of that difference is based on genetic predisposition. Not acknowledging this reality and attempting to get everybody to do the same thing will result in a lot of failures which are then blamed on the participants, which is silliness.

This is one of my biggest bones to pick about the 70's Big/Rippetoe advice on the subject, it is being universally applied/suggested while completely ignoring an entire field of research indicating that most of what controls this stuff has nothing to do with "how hard you work." This is roundaboutly acknowledged for older adults (whom Rip suggests combos like paleo + GOMAD, or skipping GOMAD), but should be acknowledged as occurring in all age ranges, because it does.

[Nauticus]

I normally try to avoid feeding the trolls...and I promised myself I wouldn't get worked up into a froth on message boards...but I just can't help myself right now.

This "500 kilocalories above maintenance" shit has to stop. It's the sort of random number that got pulled out of context and has been repeated so many times that people just believe it's true.

I keep yelling at the top of my internet lungs: "Things change as you get stronger." One of the things that changes is your rate of progression. You have some undetermined genetic limit, and as you get closer to it, the rate at which you approach it diminishes.

When you start, and if you work hard, you can gain 50 lbs of muscle and some fat in just a few months along with well over 100 lbs on your squat. This is not going to occur if you just do "500 calories (actually kilocalories) over maintenance."

Things will change as you get stronger. Your rate of improvement will slow. But your baseline metabolic needs are going to be much greater when you are a 200-lb athlete as opposed to the 150-lb weak, useless novice you used to be. E'en so as a weakling novice trying to become a strong athlete, you are going to need thousands of kilocalories above baseline in order to fuel your very hard squatting sessions, recover and grow. Thousands.

Even when a hard-squatting newbie is done with his first few months of explosive growth, he will probably still need way in excess of "500 above" his new baseline if he plans to be, ya know, athletic.

Those of you who are getting fatter instead of stronger aren't working hard enough. Squats hurt and they hurt even if you do them properly and even a perfectly executed squat will feel like it's about to damage something you really need when it gets heavy enough. So I'm not surprised that there are a number of crybabies out there who think a gallon of Nature's perfect mammal growth formula each day is too much. They're not working hard enough and adding weight to their squats so excess calories they eat become lard. That's when they trot out the "500 above" number and accuse GOMAD of making them and others fat.

To be fair, you have fucking monster genes. Squatting 400 at 165 pounds is unreal.

As for me, the fat gain is inevitable. I don't harbor any delusions about being strong with a mere 2500 calories daily, though. I tried that and stalled on weights for months. Strength > sixpack

[Koalala]

It's not my intention to troll :(
But Gary why are you still 80kg if bulking up is that great and useful?(no offence)

[StrongIslander,NY]

It's not my intention to troll :(
But Gary why are you still 80kg if bulking up is that great and useful?(no offence)

down goes the gauntlet!

[coldfire]

The actual truth is that some people will thrive on GOMAD and stuffing their faces, some other people will add massive amounts of fat relative to muscle gain no matter how hard they work, and most of that difference is based on genetic predisposition.

This is nice and all, but unless you have some data to support this, it's irrelevant. I haven't seen or heard about anyone who gained more fat than muscle while following SS.

[Gary Gibson]

This sounds nice and all, but there is a fair amount of research looking at the effects of overfeeding on p-ratio (i.e. one's tendency to put on either lean or non-lean mass when overfeeding), and most of the factors controlling it are actually out of our hands (i.e. can be chalked up to the same genetics which you seem aware of that is so responsible for athletic performance). Read the following:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/calorie-partitioning-part-1.html

The actual truth is that some people will thrive on GOMAD and stuffing their faces, some other people will add massive amounts of fat relative to muscle gain no matter how hard they work, and most of that difference is based on genetic predisposition. Not acknowledging this reality and attempting to get everybody to do the same thing will result in a lot of failures which are then blamed on the participants, which is silliness.

This is one of my biggest bones to pick about the 70's Big/Rippetoe advice on the subject, it is being universally applied/suggested while completely ignoring an entire field of research indicating that most of what controls this stuff has nothing to do with "how hard you work." This is roundaboutly acknowledged for older adults (whom Rip suggests combos like paleo + GOMAD, or skipping GOMAD), but should be acknowledged as occurring in all age ranges, because it does.

The following may sound sarcastic, but it's not meant to be.

Maybe some of you really just aren't meant to be strong and muscular. Eating enough to support muscle growth will just make you fat after all. Maybe you should find another hobby.

Blowd, you're a smart, strong guy, but you like to play contrarian (which I can respect) with research that "indicates otherwise."

There are so many people for whom this shit starts working only after they stop analyzing and start eating and working harder. If there really are those who can't be helped by GOMAD and working harder, maybe they really just need to find something else to do with themselves that doesn't require excess calories.

[nisora33]

This sounds nice and all, but there is a fair amount of research looking at the effects of overfeeding on p-ratio (i.e. one's tendency to put on either lean or non-lean mass when overfeeding), and most of the factors controlling it are actually out of our hands (i.e. can be chalked up to the same genetics which you seem aware of that is so responsible for athletic performance). Read the following:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/calorie-partitioning-part-1.html

The actual truth is that some people will thrive on GOMAD and stuffing their faces, some other people will add massive amounts of fat relative to muscle gain no matter how hard they work, and most of that difference is based on genetic predisposition. Not acknowledging this reality and attempting to get everybody to do the same thing will result in a lot of failures which are then blamed on the participants, which is silliness.

This is one of my biggest bones to pick about the 70's Big/Rippetoe advice on the subject, it is being universally applied/suggested while completely ignoring an entire field of research indicating that most of what controls this stuff has nothing to do with "how hard you work." This is roundaboutly acknowledged for older adults (whom Rip suggests combos like paleo + GOMAD, or skipping GOMAD), but should be acknowledged as occurring in all age ranges, because it does.


Yes, some people naturally partition more calories toward fat than muscle. Sad fucking fact of life. Others appear to stay very lean during extending periods of overfeeding.

But one thing doesn't differ, blowdpanis, regardless of who you are: massive amounts of calories are needed in order to achieve the kind of strength gains often touted on this board and in Rip's own words. Some will gain more fat than others while doing this, but it must be done if MEANINGFUL mass and strength gains are to be achieved. I suppose you'd recommend lean bulking. If you've got the patience--and the endless resources in TIME AND MONEY to lean bulk--then go right fucking ahead. Most of us don't.

Peace.

[JCavin]

The reason Gary is able to squat 400 at 185lbs is because he eats like he's supposed to...

I don't mind the weight gain from everything I eat.

But, I also know that i'm not lifting nearly enough to burn off all the extra calories yet. I just don't care. I'm here to get stronger, not get a six pack.

[nisora33]

your fucking funny for a girl!!! you should get ur own sitcom

By the way strongislander and everyone else who might give a damn: I'm not a chick, my parents very unfortunately decided to give me a "girl's" name.

Sorry to disappoint, but appreciate the compliment anyway.

-Stacey

[Gary Gibson]

The reason Gary is able to squat 400 at 185lbs is because he eats like he's supposed to...

I don't mind the weight gain from everything I eat.

But, I also know that i'm not lifting nearly enough to burn off all the extra calories yet. I just don't care. I'm here to get stronger, not get a six pack.

I'm 165-170...not that I'm counting. :)

Edit: I overeat in waves. Most days I hang around 2000-3000 kcals/day...but my daily caloric intake during high volume squat and bench cycles would frighten most people. I have no choice. Still find it hard to gain much permanent weight though. Though I've added another 60 lbs to my squat this year, I'm still bouncing between 165 and 175. Had a permanent weight gain of about 2 lbs through it all.

Fair warning: I'm snowed in this weekend and have nothing much better to do than write and post things on this forum.

[Koalala]

The reason Gary is able to squat 400 at 185lbs is because he eats like he's supposed to...

I don't mind the weight gain from everything I eat.

But, I also know that i'm not lifting nearly enough to burn off all the extra calories yet. I just don't care. I'm here to get stronger, not get a six pack.

If he's eating and training properly,then why is remaining small?
No offence, just want to understand this part

[blowdpanis]

The following may sound sarcastic, but it's not meant to be.

Maybe some of you really just aren't meant to be strong and muscular. Eating enough to support muscle growth will just make you fat after all. Maybe you should find another hobby.

Blowd, you're a smart, strong guy, but you like to play contrarian (which I can respect) with research that "indicates otherwise."

There are so many people for whom this shit starts working only after they stop analyzing and start eating and working harder. If there really are those who can't be helped by GOMAD and working harder, maybe they really just need to find something else to do with themselves that doesn't require excess calories.

You know that's not my point, though. My point is that you can't just suggest a one size fits all dietary prescription, which is exactly what 70's Big is turning into. All I'm suggesting is that a more cautious approach (I don't know if that's 500 kcals over the limit, but certainly something more cautious than the 4000-6000 kcals common prescribed to young males) WILL work better for many people. This should be acknowledged.

And how would you like it if dudes squatting 600+ at 165 told you that you "shouldn't bother" squatting with your mere 405 squat since it's obvious you'll never be elite like they are? I think a lot of us wound up at sites like this precisely because we aren't inherently awesome at this stuff, and have to invest more thought in making shit work than naturals. Some people's genetics are pretty shitty, but I will give respect to ANYBODY trying to make an honest change, just lump sum dismissing them because they can't do what we might be capable of just seems arrogant and pointless.

[nisora33]

I'm 165-170...not that I'm counting. :)

Fair warning: I'm snowed in this weekend and have nothing much better to do than write and post things on this forum.

Wife's out with some friends, and all I've got to do is read, post on this forum and enjoy lots of beer this evening.

With our powers combined....! (strikes a pose)

[nisora33]

All I'm suggesting is that a more cautious approach (I don't know if that's 500 kcals over the limit, but certainly something more cautious than the 4000-6000 kcals common prescribed to young males) WILL work better for many people. This should be acknowledged.


It will work better for some people in terms of preventing excess fat gain. It will also limit strength gains too. Surely you can see that.

[StrongIslander,NY]

i guess this is the reason you get powerlifter's that look finely chiseled and well defined and then others look like fat truckers. both are way stronger than average joe/jane. the point is your body and genetics determine how you wear the xtra poundage.

[Gary Gibson]

If he's eating and training properly,then why is remaining small?
No offence, just want to understand this part

Genetic predisposition. I'm a bit over 5'9" and when I started messing with barbells I was only ~130 lbs. So I'm now about 35-40 lbs heavier. And if I want to be taken seriously as a powerlifter I'll have to be ~200.

But genetics is a real bear. The best powerlifters at my height are closer to 300 lbs than they are to 200. So I'll won't be setting any world records because I started at 130 lbs and will end up at 200 lbs after many years of concerted effort. The top guys at my height might have started at 200 and ended up at 300. So it goes. We ALL have to eat a lot to support all the heavy lifting.

[Gary Gibson]

And how would you like it if dudes squatting 600+ at 165 told you that you "shouldn't bother" squatting with your mere 405 squat since it's obvious you'll never be elite like they are? I think a lot of us wound up at sites like this precisely because we aren't inherently awesome at this stuff, and have to invest more thought in making shit work than naturals. Some people's genetics are pretty shitty, but I will give respect to ANYBODY trying to make an honest change, just lump sum dismissing them because they can't do what we might be capable of just seems arrogant and pointless.

Ah, but I HAVE been told by many to give it up back when I was struggling to get a 315 SQ.

The very best 165-ers DO squat ~550 with just a belt...but they're all about 5'5". For me to be MY best at 5'9"+, I'm going to have to weigh around 200. I acknowledge that and I'm going to put the necessary years and kilocalories into it to get my 600+ lb raw squat at 198.

And arrogance? Not at all. No whining either. I suck as a 165 lifter. I'm too tall to be taken seriously in this weight class. They don't have a height differential in this sport. They just require me to keep overeating and training till I'm a weight that doesn't make me look like a large, brown insect under a heavy bar.

[blowdpanis]

It will work better for some people in terms of preventing excess fat gain. It will also limit strength gains too. Surely you can see that.

The point is to maximize lean mass gain, I'd think, as long-term gains in strength are inherently tied to the muscle which is producing those gains. I.e. the best predictor of how much strength you'll have gained in the long run is how much muscle gain went along with it. Gaining weight for the sake of gaining weight doesn't seem like the point of all of this, unless we just like seeing the scale weight go up.

If you eat in a manner well beyond your body's capacity to actually add muscle, all you're doing is adding fat you'll have to take off later without any net gain in muscle relative to a lower kcal intake, one that would still maximize lean mass gain. So you get to be fatter for the effort while adding literally no more muscle than had you simply eaten less.

While I can't envision a scenario in which eating too much would really HURT your strength gains, I can imagine a situation in which a person could eat a lot less than the 5000-6000 calories commonly thrown out, and still gain strength at the exact same rate, with the bonus of not getting as overfat in the process. That's my point. Of course, individual results may vary, and people should obviously experiment for themselves, but I'm just sick of seeing the "LOL YOU'RE NOT WORKING HARD ENOUGH, LABCOAT" attitude whenever we see somebody suggest that the 70's big approach isn't working out as they expected. Given what we know from research about p-ratio, it makes perfect sense that some people are going to fail wildly with that approach.

[blowdpanis]

Genetic predisposition. I'm a bit over 5'9" and when I started messing with barbells I was only ~130 lbs. So I'm now about 35-40 lbs heavier. And if I want to be taken seriously as a powerlifter I'll have to be ~200.

But genetics is a real bear. The best powerlifters at my height are closer to 300 lbs than they are to 200. So I'll won't be setting any world records because I started at 130 lbs and will end up at 200 lbs after many years of concerted effort. The top guys at my height might have started at 200 and ended up at 300. So it goes. We ALL have to eat a lot to support all the heavy lifting.

The weird thing is that you and I have a very similar background and history for this stuff. I started off at about the exact same weight, and now weigh about exactly what you do, netting about the same muscle gain. Your squat currently beats mine by a good bit (I have yet to try the Smolov stuff, may have to at some point), though I appear to have a bit more propensity for the upper body lifts.

But yes, the same genetics which prevent us from being powerhouses are the same genetics which might make people partition calories like shit, even if they're young'uns. Actually, I don't partition calories too awesomely myself, and have to be more cautious than the average bear, and I know this through a lot of trial and error. I just think we should be reasonable in giving anybody honest advice that's looking to make real change, no matter how prediposed towards success they are with this stuff.

[Gary Gibson]

The point is to maximize lean mass gain, I'd think, as long-term gains in strength are inherently tied to the muscle which is producing those gains. I.e. the best predictor of how much strength you'll have gained in the long run is how much muscle gain went along with it. Gaining weight for the sake of gaining weight doesn't seem like the point of all of this, unless we just like seeing the scale weight go up.

If you eat in a manner well beyond your body's capacity to actually add muscle, all you're doing is adding fat you'll have to take off later without any net gain in muscle relative to a lower kcal intake, one that would still maximize lean mass gain. So you get to be fatter for the effort while adding literally no more muscle than had you simply eaten less.

While I can't envision a scenario in which eating too much would really HURT your strength gains, I can imagine a situation in which a person could eat a lot less than the 5000-6000 calories commonly thrown out, and still gain strength at the exact same rate, with the bonus of not getting as overfat in the process. That's my point. Of course, individual results may vary, and people should obviously experiment for themselves, but I'm just sick of seeing the "LOL YOU'RE NOT WORKING HARD ENOUGH, LABCOAT" attitude whenever we see somebody suggest that the 70's big approach isn't working out as they expected.

I hear what you're saying, I really do. And I need to amend what I've said thus: "If you want to look svelte more than you want to be really strong, then you should find another hobby."

Adipose tissue DOES help you get stronger. This will vary with the individual, but your body is going to add a certain amount of fat for every bit of muscle it puts on. And this amount changes the more muscular you get. Initially it may be a pound of fat for every four pounds of muscle. Eventually it gets closer to a pound of muscle accompanied by four pounds of fat.

The most muscular athletes in the world? Research indicates it's sumo wrestlers. They look like fat slobs, but that adipose is a condition for all the lean mass they are carrying underneath it.

The reason we like cyberlynching labcoats is because they miss this point. You have to gain fat to add muscle. Some people have to gain quite a bit of fat to add muscle. Everyone will put on less muscle per unit of fat as they progress. Very strong men do not look like bodybuilders unless they are genetic anomalies. And if you're going to get very strong, you're going to have to eat enough calories to build muscle and building muscle means adding fat in an initial ratio given to you by your parents...and this ratio will change for everyone as they progress. (Because things change as you get stronger.)

Our mission here that you find so inappropriately "one size fits all" is to get people over this fear of fat gain. It's going to happen and it's going to happen worse for some than other. But it MUST happen if you are going to get strong. People like me will still look lean as we approach a 600-lb raw squat. Others not so much. Genetics. But biology dictates that the fat must come with the muscle. If that's really a problem for an individual's tastes, then that individual is not as concerned with getting strong as they are with looking better naked. They should do something that doesn't require lots of calories and gaining fat to suit their own tastes.

(I'm lucky that both muscle AND fat make me look better naked. I really need to show you guys some the pics from my teenage years. Painful stuff. Not that it's tremendously better 40 lbs later.)

[nisora33]

The weird thing is that you and I have a very similar background and history for this stuff. I started off at about the exact same weight, and now weigh about exactly what you do, netting about the same muscle gain. Your squat currently beats mine by a good bit (I have yet to try the Smolov stuff, may have to at some point), though I appear to have a bit more propensity for the upper body lifts.

But yes, the same genetics which prevent us from being powerhouses are the same genetics which might make people partition calories like shit, even if they're young'uns. Actually, I don't partition calories too awesomely myself, and have to be more cautious than the average bear, and I know this through a lot of trial and error. I just think we should be reasonable in giving anybody honest advice that's looking to make real change, no matter how prediposed towards success they are with this stuff.

Okay, let me put this another way, blowd. All of this assumes proper training, of course.

Let's say I'm training and I'm overfeeding. Right now I'm eating 5,000 calories a day. Let's say my genetics suck, and--even with proper strength training--I still manage only to partion 20% of my calories toward lean tissue, and the remainder goes to fat.

I'm not happy about this, so I figure I'll reduce overfeeding. Even so, my body is still going to partition calories exactly the same. 5,000 calories were being partitioned at 20/80 before, now 3,000 calories are being partitioned at 20/80. What this means, if I understand things correctly, is that now BOTH fat and lean muscle tissue growth is being stunted. Because the conditions that are responsible for lean muscle gain are the same that cause fat to accumulate, yes?

[nisora33]

Sorry, Gary, we both said basically the same thing. I must have been typing my post while you were typing yours.

[blowdpanis]

Okay, let me put this another way, blowd. All of this assumes proper training, of course.

Let's say I'm training and I'm overfeeding. Right now I'm eating 5,000 calories a day. Let's say my genetics suck, and--even with proper strength training--I still manage only to partion 20% of my calories toward lean tissue, and the remainder goes to fat.

I'm not happy about this, so I figure I'll reduce overfeeding. Even so, my body is still going to partition calories exactly the same. 5,000 calories were being partitioned at 20/80 before, now 3,000 calories are being partitioned at 20/80. What this means, if I understand things correctly, is that now BOTH fat and lean muscle tissue growth is being stunted. Because the conditions that are responsible for lean muscle gain are the same that cause fat to accumulate, yes?

Believe it or not, it doesn't necessarily mean this. One of the factors which negatively impacts your ability to partition calories towards lean mass is already being overfat. I.e. the fatter you are, to some degree, the worse you are making your partitioning, due to fat's impact on the hormonal milieu that's responsible for this partitioning stuff. You will commonly see Lyle recommending most less than genetically awesome trainees stay in the ~12-15% bodyfat range most of the time, perhaps as high as 20%, but usually not over, and it's for this reason.

I would agree, however, that going bananas on the calories is a way to make sure you add as much muscle as is humanly possible in the shortest timeframe possible. If that is your sole goal, then I wouldn't disagree with a 70's Big approach.

However, it also seems like we're treating people whose goal ISN'T "to get as muscular/strong as possible at all costs and as quickly as possible" as lesser men or something. Imho, if anybody is denying that looking good naked doesn't have SOMETHING to do with why we are lifting heavy weights, I will go ahead and suggest that person is being...naive.

[blowdpanis]

I hear what you're saying, I really do. And I need to amend what I've said thus: "If you want to look svelte more than you want to be really strong, then you should find another hobby."

Adipose tissue DOES help you get stronger. This will vary with the individual, but your body is going to add a certain amount of fat for every bit of muscle it puts on. And this amount changes the more muscular you get. Initially it may be a pound of fat for every four pounds of muscle. Eventually it gets closer to a pound of muscle accompanied by four pounds of fat.

The most muscular athletes in the world? Research indicates it's sumo wrestlers. They look like fat slobs, but that adipose is a condition for all the lean mass they are carrying underneath it.

The reason we like cyberlynching labcoats is because they miss this point. You have to gain fat to add muscle. Some people have to gain quite a bit of fat to add muscle. Everyone will put on less muscle per unit of fat as they progress. Very strong men do not look like bodybuilders unless they are genetic anomalies. And if you're going to get very strong, you're going to have to eat enough calories to build muscle and building muscle means adding fat in an initial ratio given to you by your parents...and this ratio will change for everyone as they progress. (Because things change as you get stronger.)

Our mission here that you find so inappropriately "one size fits all" is to get people over this fear of fat gain. It's going to happen and it's going to happen worse for some than other. But it MUST happen if you are going to get strong. People like me will still look lean as we approach a 600-lb raw squat. Others not so much. Genetics. But biology dictates that the fat must come with the muscle. If that's really a problem for an individual's tastes, then that individual is not as concerned with getting strong as they are with looking better naked. They should do something that doesn't require lots of calories and gaining fat to suit their own tastes.

(I'm lucky that both muscle AND fat make me look better naked. I really need to show you guys some the pics from my teenage years. Painful stuff. Not that it's tremendously better 40 lbs later.)

Something I left out of my previous analysis is that, yes, being bloated and fat probably will help performance, even outside of considerations of lean mass. I've actually noticed that waist circumference is an eerily good predictor of squat performance, all else being equal.

If one's sole goal is to lift as much weight as possible, then getting as strong/big as possible is obviously the most straightforward path to get there.

But I think most of us, whether we admit it or not, are factoring in other stuff into the equation (our health, how good we look naked, etc), so I don't think it's quite that simple, unless we should all strive to be actual sumo wrestlers, as per your observation of their lean mass.

[nisora33]

Believe it or not, it doesn't necessarily mean this. One of the factors which negatively impacts your ability to partition calories towards lean mass is already being overfat. I.e. the fatter you are, to some degree, the worse you are making your partitioning, due to fat's impact on the hormonal milieu that's responsible for this partitioning stuff. You will commonly see Lyle recommending most less than genetically awesome trainees stay in the ~12-15% bodyfat range most of the time, perhaps as high as 20%, but usually not over, and it's for this reason.

I've only read the Ultimate Diet 2.0 from Lyle. Anything else I might know has come from reading his forum. I've not come across this before in reading, and everyone I've trained has put on, at the very most, 1 lb. of fat for every pound of muscle as far as I can tell, so I can't really refute what you're saying from the standpoint of education or experience. Maybe you could point me toward the appropriate reading.


However, it also seems like we're treating people whose goal ISN'T "to get as muscular/strong as possible at all costs and as quickly as possible" as lesser men or something. Imho, if anybody is denying that looking good naked doesn't have SOMETHING to do with why we are lifting heavy weights, I will go ahead and suggest that person is being...naive.

Well, I'm married, my wife supports my goals to get big and strong, so looking good naked ain't exactly at the top of my list of priorities right now.

[Gary Gibson]

Sorry, Gary, we both said basically the same thing. I must have been typing my post while you were typing yours.

No prob. I am having a ball here. (Recently got dumped and am tired of looking at porn.)


The weird thing is that you and I have a very similar background and history for this stuff. I started off at about the exact same weight, and now weigh about exactly what you do, netting about the same muscle gain. Your squat currently beats mine by a good bit (I have yet to try the Smolov stuff, may have to at some point), though I appear to have a bit more propensity for the upper body lifts.

Your upper body lifts make me very angry. Nice vids, by the way.



However, it also seems like we're treating people whose goal ISN'T "to get as muscular/strong as possible at all costs and as quickly as possible" as lesser men or something. Imho, if anybody is denying that looking good naked doesn't have SOMETHING to do with why we are lifting heavy weights, I will go ahead and suggest that person is being...naive.

I addressed this one in another post. It's what I meant earlier when I was castigated for sounding arrogant.

I have some very fat friends who are extremely weak. I understand if looking better naked is more important to them than getting really strong. I really do. So I stand by what I said: if your bodytype/genetic predisposition makes you fat, then maybe getting strong won't be as important to you as looking better and you should adjust your habits accordingly.

I also know a lot of strong butterballs who could give a rat's ass about how they look and who just want to move more weight. I respect them too.

[nisora33]

But I think most of us, whether we admit it or not, are factoring in other stuff into the equation (our health, how good we look naked, etc), so I don't think it's quite that simple, unless we should all strive to be actual sumo wrestlers, as per your observation of their lean mass.

Blowd, you do realize that no one is recommending that you eat this way and stay this pudgy for the rest of your life, right? It's a means to end, a necessary evil, if you will.

[blowdpanis]

Blowd, you do realize that no one is recommending that you eat this way and stay this pudgy for the rest of your life, right? It's a means to end, a necessary evil, if you will.

I get that, and it's hard to disagree with (a point Rip and Justin have made pretty much verbatim), but doesn't it take literally many years to tap out strength and muscle for somebody not on drugs, regardless of how they eat and train? Some people may care about how they look, or their health, over a timespan like that, unless we're suggesting years of questionable dietary habits aren't enough to affect either.

Gary is probably right, I do enjoy being a contrarian, but I'm just trying to bring the scales back a little towards the middle here.

[Gary Gibson]

Time to bring up that ol' chestnut about somatotypes.

Pure ectomorph: short torso, relatively long limbs, little muscle or fat.
Pure mesomorph: relatively short limbs compared to torso, lots of muscle, little fat.
Pure endomorph: wide hips (knocked knees), lots of fat, little muscle
endomesomorph: lots of fat AND muscle.

****

Ecto-ish types are just skinny and need muscle and fat and probably gain both at about the same rate.

Mesos (those lucky fuckers) will gain lots of muscle for each bit of fat they put on.

Endos (those poor fuckers) start out kinda soft and fat and gain more fat than they do muscle no matter WHAT they do.

Endomeso (mesoendos?) gain both at about the same rate like ectos, except they start with more and gain both more quickly than ectos.

****

If you are very endomorphic, then I'm very sorry. Strength and muscle come hard, while fat comes easy. You probably got picked on even more than the skinny nerds because you were soft and fat. Not your fault, however. Just not in the genetic cards for you to be strong or well-formed. Ah, but who said life was fair though?

If you're mostly meso, then I detest and envy you. You probably played strength and power sports in high school and got laid a lot.

If you're endomeso, then you probably played strength and power sports in high school, but didn't "look" quite as god-like as the mesos, but you were probably naturally one of the biggest, strongest people in your area.

If you're a ecto, then even though you have to fight and scrape for every pound of bodyweight, at least you get to eat whatever you want without worry about ever looking fat.

[knox]

The thing with SS is that someone with average genetics will get fat for the first while. As fluxboy posted a while back, you start out skinny, then become skinny fat, then strong fat, and then viking. Right now I'm still in the skinny fat stage, and it's pissing me off but I'm going to grin and bear it until I get to Viking. It's a longer term commitment than just trying to look better in the miror immediately, but down the road the end results are better.

What you need to keep in mind is that your body composition changes pretty rapidly when you're squatting heavy. Right now at 187 lbs, up from 155 lbs, I'm kind of chubby looking. But that's because I'm increasing my bodyweight quickly, and my body's throwing on the weight however it can. Once my bodyweight stops increasing and becomes more stable, I'm expecting my body composition to change such that my muscle:fat ratio is much higher, since this is what's happened to most people on the forum. This even happened to me on a mini-scale. My first week and a half of SS I noticed an immediate difference in my musculature from the heavy lifting, but not in my bodyfat levels, since I wasn't yet able to eat that much. After that my appetite caught up, I started gaining weight more quickly and I started getting chubby.

And Gary, I'd have to disagree with your sentiments about fat people. A fat guy is probably the best candidate for SS since he doesn't have to worry about increasing how much he eats. Also, fat people will look better every step of the way on SS because they're losing fat and gaining muscle the whole time, whereas skinny people like me have the "chubby" phase before looking strong. If a fat guy decides to just lose his extra weight instead of getting strong, he'll look like an average skinny guy except with really saggy skin - and it would probably take him the same amount of time to get there as it would to become a Viking.

[nisora33]

I get that, and it's hard to disagree with (a point Rip and Justin have made pretty much verbatim), but doesn't it take literally many years to tap out strength and muscle for somebody not on drugs, regardless of how they eat and train? Some people may care about how they look, or their health, over a timespan like that, unless we're suggesting years of questionable dietary habits aren't enough to affect either.

Gary is probably right, I do enjoy being a contrarian, but I'm just trying to bring the scales back a little towards the middle here.

But you've very obviously forgotten, or never read, the part in Practical Programming, which states that most people won't make it past the intermediate phase of their lifting careers, having found a sport or hobby to invest their newfound strength in. We're looking at two years of pushing boundaries and trying to set new PRs in terms of pounds lifted, which will morph into trying for PRs in whatever your chosen sport or hobby has become. You might even decide--God forbid!--that you want to become a bodybuilder, and so lifting the most weight possible may no longer matter so much to you. I don't know, make something up, but goals will likely change. You've got to take into consideration Rip's intended audience: these are people who've tried to get big and strong the "industry" way, eating clean, lapping up all the supplements they can afford, and doing retarded bodybuilding splits that have them spinning their wheels for literally months and sometimes years, when talking about overfeeding.

[misspelledgeoff]

i think blowdpanis exemplefies a secret fear a lot of newbs to SS have. Not that blow is a n00b, his thinking just hits home with a lot of them.

they are terrified of getting fat. this fear takes on many forms. some are honest, and outwardly bemoan the loss of teh abzors and fear they will never get laid again. others try to cloak the fear in over-intellectualized rationalizations or 'health' concerns. the underlying fear is the same.

lookit. You don't want to hear this, I know. But if you want to get big. Really big and strong. YOu gotta get fat first. Yeah yeah Gary's skinny and strong and your cousin's sisters fiance is jakt at 220 pounds and never had an ounce of chub. But Gary and this other guy are freaks and are not me and you. Me and you, we need to get fat to get strong.

And if you really want to get big and strong, stop fretting, handwringing, doubting and worrying. Eat, lift and get fat. Take pride that you are no slave to vanity or to what 'they' say is attractive. recognize that the skeletor Abercrombie and Fitch types only titillate pubescent girls and gay men. embrace the fat for what it is--the sublime path to getting fuck-all big and strong.

[nisora33]

Take pride that you are no slave to vanity or to what 'they' say is attractive. recognize that the skeletor Abercrombie and Fitch types only titillate pubescent girls and gay men. embrace the fat for what it is--the sublime path to getting fuck-all big and strong.

Yeah, literally the only women who complimented me on how good I looked after bulking were women over forty. The twenty and thirty year-olds, not so much.

[blowdpanis]

i think blowdpanis exemplefies a secret fear a lot of newbs to SS have. Not that blow is a n00b, his thinking just hits home with a lot of them.

they are terrified of getting fat. this fear takes on many forms. some are honest, and outwardly bemoan the loss of teh abzors and fear they will never get laid again. others try to cloak the fear in over-intellectualized rationalizations or 'health' concerns. the underlying fear is the same.

lookit. You don't want to hear this, I know. But if you want to get big. Really big and strong. YOu gotta get fat first. Yeah yeah Gary's skinny and strong and your cousin's sisters fiance is jakt at 220 pounds and never had an ounce of chub. But Gary and this other guy are freaks and are not me and you. Me and you, we need to get fat to get strong.

And if you really want to get big and strong, stop fretting, handwringing, doubting and worrying. Eat, lift and get fat. Take pride that you are no slave to vanity or to what 'they' say is attractive. recognize that the skeletor Abercrombie and Fitch types only titillate pubescent girls and gay men. embrace the fat for what it is--the sublime path to getting fuck-all big and strong.

Yes, there's nothing over-intellectualized like actual research (see previous link for a discussion) indicating that you are grossly oversimplifying how calorie partitioning works. Are we interested in reality, or interested in these pretty lies of one size fits all dietary prescriptions?

My belief is that we're not doing favors by lying to people. It's also my belief that telling people who want to get bigger/stronger to "get fat," without any consideration for their goals, is fucking stupid.

Anyways, I think you (and maybe others) are missing my point. My point isn't that the eat big, get big attitude isn't useful for some people. For people who naturally partition calories well, and people whose progress is being held back due to a simple fear of eating big, it's extremely useful. My point is that reality is more complicated than the over-simplified advice of "EAT BIG YOU SKINNY-FAT LABCOAT," particularly when those recommendations will have some people thousands of calories over what is necessary or useful for them.

[nisora33]

My belief is that we're not doing favors by lying to people. It's also my belief that telling people who want to get bigger/stronger to "get fat," without any consideration for their goals, is fucking stupid.

Jesus Christ, blowd! Who's not looking at people's goals? Who here is lying? I think we've all responded fairly sensibly to your questions and concerns for the most part.

If someone's goals don't correspond with the sole focus of getting stronger, then they can obviously fucking ignore the part about overfeeding that gets brought up all the time. Just train as Rip says train, don't overfeed as much, but DON'T COME FUCKING COMPLAINING TO THE BOARD when your results don't match the results of others who did the program as prescribed.

Am I typing loudly enough now?

[Gary Gibson]

Yes, there's nothing over-intellectualized like actual research (see previous link for a discussion) indicating that you are grossly oversimplifying how calorie partitioning works. Are we interested in reality, or interested in these pretty lies of one size fits all dietary prescriptions?

My belief is that we're not doing favors by lying to people. It's also my belief that telling people who want to get bigger/stronger to "get fat," without any consideration for their goals, is fucking stupid.

If Rip and all of us are wrong and fucking stupid, then there is an immense opportunity for you to grab some market share here.

Seriously, you are a smart guy, acerbic, unafraid of insulting people (very important) and you have expertise that could be marketed. There must be thousands--maybe millions--of trainees for whom this one size did not work. They are waiting for you. You could make money out of this...or you could keep flailing away here at the dogmatic opposition. I'm sure a few people like msingh appreciate your efforts and may find something that suits them better than SS and GOMAD.

[blowdpanis]

Jesus Christ, blowd! Who's not looking at people's goals? Who here is lying? I think we've all responded fairly sensibly to your questions and concerns for the most part.

If someone's goals don't correspond with the sole focus of getting stronger, then they can obviously fucking ignore the part about overfeeding that gets brought up all the time. Just train as Rip says train, don't overfeed as much, but DON'T COME FUCKING COMPLAINING TO THE BOARD when your results don't match the results of others who did the program as prescribed.

Am I typing loudly enough now?

Sure, but the "just get fat" approach will not work well/efficiently for a lot of people (see Gary's somatotypes if you want a simplified version, I guess), imho, even if their goals are primarily strength related. And the complaints I've seen include those who feel they are getting overfat, and they are near unviersally dismissed as "not working hard enough." There is plenty of reason to suspect that many people will be doing everything intheir power and still receiving these sub-par results, and I am "calling" you guys on not acknowledging this.

So, start acknowledging it by giving them actually sensible advice (that doesn't involve a skinny-fat mess eating 5000+ calories to undue their obviously shitty genetics) without telling them to adopt a new hobby and I'll shut up.

[blowdpanis]

If Rip and all of us are wrong and fucking stupid, then there is an immense opportunity for you to grab some market share here.

Seriously, you are a smart guy, acerbic, unafraid of insulting people (very important) and you have expertise that could be marketed. There must be thousands--maybe millions--of trainees for whom this one size did not work. They are waiting for you. You could make money out of this...or you could keep flailing away here at the dogmatic opposition. I'm sure a few people like msingh appreciate your efforts and may find something that suits them better than SS and GOMAD.

You realize I think you and Rip are anything other than stupid, yes? Rip might just be my favorite strength guru in the market, and I have nothing but respect for you and the hard work you've put in to making yourself strong. As a less than advantaged person, I even have a personal appreciation for how hard it is for you to excel at this stuff.

I'm just trying to keep it real :P

[Gary Gibson]

Sure, but the "just get fat" approach will not work well/efficiently for a lot of people (see Gary's somatotypes if you want a simplified version, I guess), imho, even if their goals are primarily strength related. And the complaints I've seen include those who feel they are getting overfat, and they are near unviersally dismissed as "not working hard enough." There is plenty of reason to suspect that many people will be doing everything intheir power and still receiving these sub-par results, and I am "calling" you guys on not acknowledging this.

So, start acknowledging it by giving them actually sensible advice without telling them to adopt a new hobby and I'll shut up.

No way, I'm asking YOU what they should do. Seriously. What? I've already made my claim that strong means more fat and muscle whether we like it or not. And for some of us it will mean a LOT more fat than muscle. If they can't deal with this, then they don't really want to get strong and should fucking find something fucking else to do than bitch about how fat they're getting as their squat and bench go up.

We're not all going to get the same results out of life--no matter what the politicians and preachers promise you. Some of us are going to be fatter when we get really fucking strong than others. Our arguing won't change that. There are plenty of fat guys who got really strong and don't care that they had to get fat to do it. They don't need a new hobby. But those who aren't willing to go where they're bodies insist on taking them when it comes time to add weight to the bar, those people really need to take up body "sculpting" or rowing or soccer or something else that DOESN'T FUCKING REQUIRE GETTING FAT TO GET RESULTS. Sorry that I can get strong without getting fat. Sorry for those who have to get fat to get strong. Life's a bitch that way.

(And I still think you are a very smart guy who is also very strong. As infuriated as I may seem, I think the board needs posts like yours.)

[Nauticus]

A thread that proves squats increase testosterone.

[Bobby]

DRINK BEER! And lots of it!

[nisora33]

Sure, but the "just get fat" approach will not work well/efficiently for a lot of people (see Gary's somatotypes if you want a simplified version, I guess), imho, even if their goals are primarily strength related. And the complaints I've seen include those who feel they are getting overfat, and they are near unviersally dismissed as "not working hard enough."


Here's how it plays out for me in the real world. I'm a trainer, and I'll speak from my experience here because I use Starting Strength and overfeeding on my trainees who seem up for it. Maybe I'm different than 99% of the people on this board in terms of how I counsel my folks, but when someone reaches a respectable weight, and I see that they're getting fat and uncomfortable in their own skin, and I feel that they can continue to make significant gains without continuing to gain weight, then that person and I may make a judgment call there and then to cut calories back slightly.

And I don't have a problem with that, because they at least made the effort to gain the initial weight, in spite of losing their abs and girlish figure, and weren't so hard-headed and insecure like the average scrawny fuck who walks up to me asking how to get big and strong. At the very least, I'll let that person eat enough just to maintain their current weight at that point. For a guy at 5' 10" that might be anywhere between 210 and 230 lbs. I'm not going to stubbornly force more food down his throat in the hopes that he'll get stronger any better or faster. But in order to hit a reasonable intermediate level of strength, there's a minimum weight that I like my folks to hit, but I'm certainly not dogmatic enough to force the issue past a certain point.

There, satisfied?

[nisora33]

DRINK BEER! And lots of it!

Got it covered. Downing brewskees as we type.

[Bobby]

Got it covered. Downing brewskees as we type.

Good man.

[Gary Gibson]

A few years ago, I used to be anti-squat. Hard to believe now, I know.

I used to rail against Jack Reape over on the DD forums. Used to question the absolute necessity of squats. "What about guys like me who aren't build for squatting and benching? Huh!? Shouldn't we focus on the deadlift, press and chin up? We're not all built like you and not all of us want to be tubby, gear-whore powerlifters!"

Now look at me. I squat and bench to distraction and quote Jack Reape as if he were a book in the Bible.

My point? Just like statism and government redistribution appeals more to children and those with child-like minds (like Hollywood actors), the idea of training individuality appeals to those who like to analyze. As you spend more time getting stronger, you realize more and more that more than anything you need to squat a lot, bench a lot and eat a lot. Doing those three things will help you be better at quite a few things: sprinting, leaping, lifting large rocks, pushing cars, deadlifting, pressing, clean and jerking, snatching, knocking other people over...to name a few. Yes, you have to practice the thing you want to be good at, but you'll really be amazed at how much drastically upping your squat and bench press help you do a lot of other physical things a lot better.

Being fatter and more muscular will probably shorten your lifespan a bit. And some of you reading this may look awful when you get really strong because that's just the luck of your genetic draw; you may decide being strong isn't worth it and decide to run a lot and only eat vegetables. That's fine. Anyone can get stronger without going overboard on calories...but they're going to stall early. To keep getting stronger, they're going to have to pay the price and eat more than they're comfortable with and lay down some lard to get the muscle built.

Heh. Of course you have to define what "strong" is to you. Back when I used to mock powerlifters, I thought a 1.5xbodyweight SQ at 150 would be Just Fine.

I gave up my 8-pack (yes, I was THAT skinny and defined). Now I have a bulky set of abs that don't look quite as sharp, but I can squat more than two times what I used to. New me would kick old me's ass in absolutely any contest of power or strength. Old me could probably jog quite a bit farther than new me, but that's okay. Old me could also fit through narrower openings. That's fine too.

[blowdpanis]

Here's how it plays out for me in the real world. I'm a trainer, and I'll speak from my experience here because I use Starting Strength and overfeeding on my trainees who seem up for it. Maybe I'm different than 99% of the people on this board in terms of how I counsel my folks, but when someone reaches a respectable weight, and I see that they're getting fat and uncomfortable in their own skin, and I feel that they can continue to make significant gains without continuing to gain weight, then that person and I may make a judgment call there and then to cut calories back slightly.

And I don't have a problem with that, because they at least made the effort to gain the initial weight, in spite of losing their abs and girlish figure, and weren't so hard-headed and insecure like the average scrawny fuck who walks up to me asking how to get big and strong. At the very least, I'll let that person eat enough just to maintain their current weight at that point. For a guy at 5' 10" that might be anywhere between 210 and 230 lbs. I'm not going to stubbornly force more food down his throat in the hopes that he'll get stronger any better or faster. But in order to hit a reasonable intermediate level of strength, there's a minimum weight that I like my folks to hit, but I'm certainly not dogmatic enough to force the issue past a certain point.

There, satisfied?

Yep, and pretty much agree completely.

[blowdpanis]

No way, I'm asking YOU what they should do. Seriously. What? I've already made my claim that strong means more fat and muscle whether we like it or not. And for some of us it will mean a LOT more fat than muscle. If they can't deal with this, then they don't really want to get strong and should fucking find something fucking else to do than bitch about how fat they're getting as their squat and bench go up.

We're not all going to get the same results out of life--no matter what the politicians and preachers promise you. Some of us are going to be fatter when we get really fucking strong than others. Our arguing won't change that. There are plenty of fat guys who got really strong and don't care that they had to get fat to do it. They don't need a new hobby. But those who aren't willing to go where they're bodies insist on taking them when it comes time to add weight to the bar, those people really need to take up body "sculpting" or rowing or soccer or something else that DOESN'T FUCKING REQUIRE GETTING FAT TO GET RESULTS. Sorry that I can get strong without getting fat. Sorry for those who have to get fat to get strong. Life's a bitch that way.

(And I still think you are a very smart guy who is also very strong. As infuriated as I may seem, I think the board needs posts like yours.)

First, I'd like to preface this by pointing out that I never, ever claimed to be a guru or something crazy. I am just another inherently skinny guy who wants to be bigger/stronger, like many here.

I will leave answering this question in detail to people with more expertise (e.g. Lyle Mcdonald, Martin Berkhan etc). Examples off the top of my head of more carefully partitioned dietary plans include Lyle's UD 2.0 and Martin's IF schemes. All seem to work pretty well, even for people who aren't inherently awesome at this stuff.

But I think the simpler answer, given what we know about the relationship between fat and partitioning (i.e. more fat past a point may actually worsen your p-ratio), is to simply gain weight in general at a slower pace. I honestly think an average of ~1 lb a week past the initial overfeeding/water weight stage (you will generally gain a bunch of lbs quickly when you first up the calories dramatically due to changes in water balance and such) is probably about right for a lot of people (for example, people who have tried the GOMAD/Mcdonald's approach and failed), because that still represents 50+ fucking pounds of added bodyweight in a year, and it'd be really, really hard for me to imagine a genetically average person needing to gain more than that. Particularly in that everyone seems to acknowledge it takes many years to get anywhere close to your strength or muscle potential.

And I'd even have that person averaging say ~4-5 lbs a month cease their bulk once they got up to unacceptable bodyfat levels, a good figure being > ~15-20%, in my eyes, and work for a while on getting their bodyfat under control before proceeding onwards and upwards again. That said, I'd also factor in how their training was going - assuming strength gains were rapid, I doubt I'd change much of anything until stuff started to stall.

[nisora33]

(i.e. more fat past a point may actually worsen your p-ratio)

And what is that point?

[misspelledgeoff]

so what alternative would you propose for someone who doesn't 'partition calories' in an optimal way? I'm curious because I believe I would fall in to that category of people--who convert a higher proportion of calories to fat than muscle.

i started SS at a fat 5'10" and 205. Four and a half months later I am over 260--a morbidly obese, unhealthy fat disgusting fuck.

so what program should I have tried that would have put nearly 100 pounds on my bench and 150 pounds on my squat in the span of 4.5 months? and yet would not have made me put on this suit of horrible, disgusting fat?


Yes, there's nothing over-intellectualized like actual research (see previous link for a discussion) indicating that you are grossly oversimplifying how calorie partitioning works. Are we interested in reality, or interested in these pretty lies of one size fits all dietary prescriptions?

My belief is that we're not doing favors by lying to people. It's also my belief that telling people who want to get bigger/stronger to "get fat," without any consideration for their goals, is fucking stupid.

Anyways, I think you (and maybe others) are missing my point. My point isn't that the eat big, get big attitude isn't useful for some people. For people who naturally partition calories well, and people whose progress is being held back due to a simple fear of eating big, it's extremely useful. My point is that reality is more complicated than the over-simplified advice of "EAT BIG YOU SKINNY-FAT LABCOAT," particularly when those recommendations will have some people thousands of calories over what is necessary or useful for them.

[StrongIslander,NY]

all this talk about bulking and the phases going from skinny to skinny fat plump look to viking or shredded.

im at 148 in bw. i wanna reach 165bw i eat more calories then i consume-got it

i reach 165 and i maintain calories-all lifts have gone up thru weight gain ok got that.

ques1- if im maintaining can my lifts get higher? i know i will be limited on growth but they can increase?

ques2-if im maintaining how do i lose plump look still maintain strength and get definition? i dont want to look like a fat strong slob and i dont exactly want a 6 pack and ea and every muscle is etched.

just the major broader strokes...

is it a matter of diet then reducing carbs and staying and maintaining calories with protein and fats?

[nisora33]

ques1- if im maintaining can my lifts get higher? i know i will be limited on growth but they can increase?

Answer: some, but not as much as you would if you'd continued to bulk.


ques2-if im maintaining how do i lose plump look still maintain strength and get definition?

Lyle McDonald's Ultimate Diet 2.0


How tall are you? That will factor into any estimate of what you're proper "lifting" weight might be.

[StrongIslander,NY]

im short 5 ft 4 inch why?

[nisora33]

im short 5 ft 4 inch why?

Because I, and others, can guess how much weight--allowing for a wide margin of error, of course--that you might need to gain in order to experience satisfactory strength gains for your height.

[StrongIslander,NY]

i plan to be able to do 2x bw on dl and squat at my height and a weight of 165-170.

on that ud2.o- im not looking for low levels of body fat like 5%. im at 17%-the majority in my gut. i really dont know how 165-`170 will look on me but can imagine without lifting i would just be a bag of shit-i just want to be solid and tight in a block kind of way

[stronger]

An interesting discussion, and I agree with points from both standpoints. I'd surmise that some here aren't believers in the " win more with honey than vinegar" maxim :P

[nisora33]

i plan to be able to do 2x bw on dl and squat at my height and a weight of 165-170.

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to do that, given enough time and the right sort of programming. I was going to estimate that you could top out your weight at 180 lbs. or so. This is with a reasonable amount of body fat. But your abs are going to disappear. You're not going to be a model anytime soon, understand?

[blowdpanis]

so what alternative would you propose for someone who doesn't 'partition calories' in an optimal way? I'm curious because I believe I would fall in to that category of people--who convert a higher proportion of calories to fat than muscle.

i started SS at a fat 5'10" and 205. Four and a half months later I am over 260--a morbidly obese, unhealthy fat disgusting fuck.

so what program should I have tried that would have put nearly 100 pounds on my bench and 150 pounds on my squat in the span of 4.5 months? and yet would not have made me put on this suit of horrible, disgusting fat?

I'm not sure what you want me to say here. You've done extremely well in terms of rate of strength gain. I'd question if you needed to gain weight that fast to get most of your results, though. I suspect (but obviously can't prove) you'd have gained most of your strength and more or less all of the muscle at a rate of weight gain of roughly half of what you did.

[blowdpanis]

An interesting discussion, and I agree with points from both standpoints. I'd surmise that some here aren't believers in the " win more with honey than vinegar" maxim :P

Actually what I'm most impressed with is the fact that there has been no name calling. I tend to argue pretty...strongly...but if you'll notice, I never insult people, I just attack arguments (at least mostly). People are affording me the same courtesy, so this is kind of refreshing for the internets.

[blowdpanis]

And what is that point?

This is the stuff of labcoat speculation, but more knowledgeable folks than me (e.g. the bodyrecomposition guys, Lyle et. al) have proposed somewhere in that ~15-20% bodyfat range, going off of memory.

[stronger]

Actually what I'm most impressed with is the fact that there has been no name calling. I tend to argue pretty...strongly...but if you'll notice, I never insult people, I just attack arguments (at least mostly). People are affording me the same courtesy, so this is kind of refreshing for the internets.

people are pretty civil to each other, I agree. It's also somewhat amusing to see people take full advantage of no built-in word sensor

[StrongIslander,NY]

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to do that, given enough time and the right sort of programming. I was going to estimate that you could top out your weight at 180 lbs. or so. This is with a reasonable amount of body fat. But your abs are going to disappear. You're not going to be a model anytime soon, understand?

my abs..... you gotta be kidding-i got a liver transplant scar!!!HAHAHA LMAO

dude i will never in a million years see my abs- i suck in and the muscle thats left looks like somebody punched an aluminum pan. my stomach has post op football bulge...ha ha my abs you kill me

[nisora33]

my abs..... you gotta be kidding-i got a liver transplant scar!!!HAHAHA LMAO


Awesome! A nice war scar. Get your squat and deadlift up to what you want them to be, and then you will be officially unfuckwithable.

[nisora33]

It's also somewhat amusing to see people take full advantage of no built-in word sensor


It's an art. Practice it often.

[PMDL]

Genetic predisposition. I'm a bit over 5'9" and when I started messing with barbells I was only ~130 lbs. So I'm now about 35-40 lbs heavier. And if I want to be taken seriously as a powerlifter I'll have to be ~200.

But genetics is a real bear. The best powerlifters at my height are closer to 300 lbs than they are to 200. So I'll won't be setting any world records because I started at 130 lbs and will end up at 200 lbs after many years of concerted effort. The top guys at my height might have started at 200 and ended up at 300. So it goes. We ALL have to eat a lot to support all the heavy lifting.

I started out with almost exactly your measurements, 5'9 and a hair under 130 lbs, over 10 years ago.

Since then I ate myself up to ~195 lbs via the GOMAD/GFH style of eating, and then after that, with chemical help, I got over 220 lbs.

I was strong, definitely stronger than I am now, but only by a small fraction. I also couldn't get off the couch and walk to the fridge without getting winded and having my calves cramp. I was fat, easily 22-24% by a valid measurement (i.e., not "Internet 15%").

blowdpanis is pretty much dead-on. It's not going to "work" for everyone, not like that. When I was 160 lbs and stuck there for three years because I didn't know how to eat, I felt the same way. When I'd first eaten myself up to near 200, I still felt like that.

Now a few years after the fact, things are much more comfortable for me sitting at or under 200 lbs and not being so single-minded about training for max lifts. I've pretty much come to realize that I'm at the asymptote - adding any more muscle from here is going to require adding a lot of fat that I don't want to carry.

I can say that from experience.

[misspelledgeoff]

20 years ago I would agree. but at 39 with an aging body and lower T levels, I believe if I want to get teh gainz I have to gain the extra weight. as Gary said, every individual is going to have a different fat/strength tradeoff. but if an individual is willing to accept the consequences, eating big is a proven way to get stronger, faster. perhaps we all should do a better job of making certain individuals more aware of those consequences and tradeoffs--rather than the same 70's big mantra for everyone.


I'm not sure what you want me to say here. You've done extremely well in terms of rate of strength gain. I'd question if you needed to gain weight that fast to get most of your results, though. I suspect (but obviously can't prove) you'd have gained most of your strength and more or less all of the muscle at a rate of weight gain of roughly half of what you did.

[stronger]

It's an art. Practice it often.

I agree with the former, but think the occurrence of the latter debases it and does nothing to bolster the art form

[blowdpanis]

perhaps we all should do a better job of making certain individuals more aware of those consequences and tradeoffs--rather than the same 70's big mantra for everyone.

!!! That's really my only point...

[nisora33]

I started out with almost exactly your measurements, 5'9 and a hair under 130 lbs, over 10 years ago.

Since then I ate myself up to ~195 lbs via the GOMAD/GFH style of eating, and then after that, with chemical help, I got over 220 lbs.

I was strong, definitely stronger than I am now, but only by a small fraction. I also couldn't get off the couch and walk to the fridge without getting winded and having my calves cramp. I was fat, easily 22-24% by a valid measurement (i.e., not "Internet 15%").

blowdpanis is pretty much dead-on. It's not going to "work" for everyone, not like that. When I was 160 lbs and stuck there for three years because I didn't know how to eat, I felt the same way. When I'd first eaten myself up to near 200, I still felt like that.

Now a few years after the fact, things are much more comfortable for me sitting at or under 200 lbs and not being so single-minded about training for max lifts. I've pretty much come to realize that I'm at the asymptote - adding any more muscle from here is going to require adding a lot of fat that I don't want to carry.

I can say that from experience.


But the difference between you and the average skinny-jean wearing emo hipster is that you've been to the brink and looked over it, and you've decided that your priority isn't to get ridiculously stronger than you are now, adding all that bodyfat, etc. You have self-knowledge. Experience. You're secure in what you want because of it. Goals. You know how to achieve those goals and are comfortable getting there, or willing to change goals based on said experience.

[Gary Gibson]

I started out with almost exactly your measurements, 5'9 and a hair under 130 lbs, over 10 years ago.

Since then I ate myself up to ~195 lbs via the GOMAD/GFH style of eating, and then after that, with chemical help, I got over 220 lbs.

I was strong, definitely stronger than I am now, but only by a small fraction. I also couldn't get off the couch and walk to the fridge without getting winded and having my calves cramp. I was fat, easily 22-24% by a valid measurement (i.e., not "Internet 15%").

blowdpanis is pretty much dead-on. It's not going to "work" for everyone, not like that. When I was 160 lbs and stuck there for three years because I didn't know how to eat, I felt the same way. When I'd first eaten myself up to near 200, I still felt like that.

Now a few years after the fact, things are much more comfortable for me sitting at or under 200 lbs and not being so single-minded about training for max lifts. I've pretty much come to realize that I'm at the asymptote - adding any more muscle from here is going to require adding a lot of fat that I don't want to carry.

I can say that from experience.

Um...just wanted to remind everyone that SS and GOMAD are for the first 8 months or so of training.

Gains slow down and you shouldn't continue eating as if they don't. (Some of us, however, can still get away with eating really big at times during a volume squat and bench cycle when we need to move up a weight class and add 50 lbs to squat and 25 lbs to bench.)

Really big powerlifters know that they have to sacrifice some "athleticism" to get to the upper reaches of their sport (ironic, isn't it?). According to my wrist measurements and that calculator over at Casey Butt's site, I will start seeing diminishing returns at around 190 lbs as far as fat gained for each pound of muscle. Beyond 200 lbs at reasonable bodyfat levels, I'll be adding pounds of fat for ounces of muscle. At about 220 or so, I'll be adding grams of muscle with each 10-lb increase in fat.

No one is disputing this. It's up to the individual to figure out what sort of fat/muscle gain ratio he has and to figure out how strong he wants to be given what nature has dealt him.

[Gary Gibson]

!!! That's really my only point...

So...we have a treaty on climate change or what?

[confuzzl3don3]

Shit this was a long read, but a dam good one. Nothing really to add, just glad for the informative discussion.

[Casey Dupre]

Yeh I've been trying to catch up but every time I get to the bottom of a page, there's another page in the count... good stuff ;)

EDIT: speaking of... here's another!

[PMDL]

Um...just wanted to remind everyone that SS and GOMAD are for the first 8 months or so of training.

Gains slow down and you shouldn't continue eating as if they don't. (Some of us, however, can still get away with eating really big at times during a volume squat and bench cycle when we need to move up a weight class and add 50 lbs to squat and 25 lbs to bench.)

Really big powerlifters know that they have to sacrifice some "athleticism" to get to the upper reaches of their sport (ironic, isn't it?). According to my wrist measurements and that calculator over at Casey Butt's site, I will start seeing diminishing returns at around 190 lbs as far as fat gained for each pound of muscle. Beyond 200 lbs at reasonable bodyfat levels, I'll be adding pounds of fat for ounces of muscle. At about 220 or so, I'll be adding grams of muscle with each 10-lb increase in fat.

No one is disputing this. It's up to the individual to figure out what sort of fat/muscle gain ratio he has and to figure out how strong he wants to be given what nature has dealt him.

And then you get the joy of injuries.

It's another monkey wrench in your plans when some joint or muscle explodes every other month, and you can't train worth a damn because of it.

I'm not really arguing with you fellas, honestly. I'm just chiming in my advice as a guy that's been there and done that, and now is on the other side of the fence.

It's good, it's motivating, and I'd even dare say that eating yourself fat is a good thing regardless of your genetics, just to say you've done it. On the other hand, I'm also saying not to get so wrapped up in it that you fall apart once you see what's really at the end of the journey.

[nisora33]

And then you get the joy of injuries.

It's another monkey wrench in your plans when some joint or muscle explodes every other month, and you can't train worth a damn because of it.


The same can be said of any sport pursued at the advanced or elite level. Competitive powerlifting isn't "special" in this regard.

-Stacey

[PMDL]

So?

You think I was talking specifically about powerlifting?

[nisora33]

So?

You think I was talking specifically about powerlifting?

Yes, I did. And I thought is was important for all of those of novice status, who are intrepidly stepping off that precipice for the first time into physical adulthood, and who are far, far away from actually making that decision to compete, to understand the difference between where they are now and that (serious) injuries will actually be quite scarce for them.

[PMDL]

Yes, I did. And I thought is was important for all of those of novice status, who are intrepidly stepping off that precipice for the first time into physical adulthood, and who are far, far away from actually making that decision to compete, to understand the difference between where they are now and that (serious) injuries will actually be quite scarce for them.

Who are you to say that to anybody? Vulnerability to injuries is going to be just as genetic as anything else. Adding in heavy strength training of any kind is going to push up the risk-factor for injuries, regardless.

You can be pro-active about joint integrity and conservative with gains, to a point, but realistically, there's only so much you can do while still chasing strength gains. Injuries are inevitable, especially in smaller guys looking to push past their limits.

[nisora33]

Who are you to say that to anybody? Vulnerability to injuries is going to be just as genetic as anything else. Adding in heavy strength training of any kind is going to push up the risk-factor for injuries, regardless.

You can be pro-active about joint integrity and conservative with gains, to a point, but realistically, there's only so much you can do while still chasing strength gains. Injuries are inevitable, especially in smaller guys looking to push past their limits.

So it's your contention that competitive lifters who are regularly testing their strength with 1 RM in competition and the like--where joint surface loading is almost a guarantee--aren't at any higher risk or likely to suffer serious njuries? Because I find it hard to believe that a smart guy like you would claim that.

[nisora33]

And something tells me, Matt, that we should probably define what a "serious" injury is, before we go any further.

I define a serious injury as one to the bones or ligaments, or a major tear in a muscle belly, or a rupture of a disc.

Less serious injuries will happen occassionally, the niggling type injuries that are more a less an annoyance and not a serious impediment to progress. These are more likely to happen to a novice, or don't you agree?

[PMDL]

So it's your contention that competitive lifters who are regularly testing their strength with 1 RM in competition and the like--where joint surface loading is almost a guarantee--aren't at any higher risk or likely to suffer serious njuries? Because I find it hard to believe that a smart guy like you would claim that.

Well, no, that wasn't what I was claiming from the outset. Which is why I say things like:

Adding in heavy strength training of any kind is going to push up the risk-factor for injuries, regardless.

Of course maximal and near-maximal lifting is going to hurt you more than being conservative - but "hurt" is relative. Bodybuilders train with high reps more often than not, and they're some of the most hurt motherfuckers you'll find out there because of poor exercise selection and poor programming in general.

The point is, picking up weights in the first place is just accepting that you're going to get hurt to some degree or another.

As far as the "serious" injuries etc, I'm not here to play games over semantics. I've said what I meant to say.

[nisora33]

Okay, just so everyone on the boards is clear: weight training can cause injuries.

You may get tendinitis, you may sprain something, tear something. At times, these things might be an inconvenience to you. I'm sorry about that. Life sucks. Don't train if you don't want any of these things to happen to you, ever.

In fact, I'm not sure you want to do anything physically challenging ever again. Best to stay indoors where all the bad things can't get you.

Matt, I'm sorry you got hurt. Please accept my apology on behalf of the universe. There, now I've said my peace.

[Gary Gibson]

I hate when people roll out Ripisms as much as the next guy, BUT...

To paraphrase Rip: accumulating and learning to manage injuries is the price we pay for the thrill of not having sat around on our asses.

Rip also has a dandy little table in SS that shows injuries per hours of participation in various sports. Weightlifting and powerlifting are stunningly low on the list.

I quoted ol' "Unca" Garm in another thread recently and allow me to quote him again: athletes are always a little bit injured. No getting around it. If you push yourself--and particularly if you are small without robust joints--you are courting injury. You will get some injuries. Stick with it long enough and push far enough and you may get a significant injury. But the target audience of SS are not the same people looking to raw squat or pull more than triple bodyweight. The people who decide to go that far are...different...special...touched.

(And there soon may be an article in the article section on the importance of light gear in protecting the joints with warmth and a bit of compression and increasing their articular efficiency under load.)

edit: And what Stacey just said too.

[PMDL]

The irony is that I've actually been there and done that, and I'm simply giving a perspective that most guys don't tend to get on this subject. I haven't said once "don't do it" or "this is a bad idea". All I said is that I've been there, and this is some shit to expect.

I guess that's reason enough to get shitty about it, right?

[Kate]

...I need to amend what I've said thus: "If you want to look svelte more than you want to be really strong, then you should find another hobby."

But isn't that like saying "if you don't want to move to Colorado and do what it takes to become an Olympic skier, then you should put away your skis and find another hobby"? Seems like it, and if so, methinks I see some all-or-nothing thinking here. There is a middle ground, and room for people with different aptitudes and goals. I'm never going to be an Olympic skier, but I'm not giving up my skiing. (And dammit, Gary; you have my snow. Send it up here to upstate NY, will ya?)

I've found this thread to be pretty interesting, but from an outsider's perspective. "Outsider," in my case, means "middle-aged skinny chick who wants to get stronger and who so far kinda sorta likes weight training, at least for now." The whole '70s Big thing just doesn't apply to me, and goals like 600-pound squats don't, either. That world is so far away from mine as to be in a different galaxy.

I don't have a stake in this discussion -- and I don't think Gary really means that people like me shouldn't do what we can with weight-training and enjoy it as a hobby, rather than as the primary focus of our existence. Just wanted to steer things away from the all-or-nothing perspective that seems to creep into these discussions fairly often.


(I'm lucky that both muscle AND fat make me look better naked. I really need to show you guys some pics from my teenage years....)I'm sorry, but the juxtaposition of those two sentences is just hilarious to me. I'm assuming any pics you'd post are actually G- or PG-rated, not X-rated, but that sentence sequence is just too funny. (Now you know how easily amused I am, and how low my blood sugar is right now.)
(Edited to add: I realize that you followed that with "painful stuff," so again, sorry for laughing at that. But hey, you were the one who mentioned porn earlier.)


To paraphrase Rip: accumulating and learning to manage injuries is the price we pay for the thrill of not having sat around on our asses. I like that Rip-ism. And since I'm such a klutz I can get injured just walking across the damn room (banging into the coffee table, or whatnot), I might as well do something fun or productive or both, like, say, skiing and weight training and such.

And now, since I didn't eat a proper dinner today, and clearly need more sustenance, I'm off to the kitchen to scrounge for food...

~Kate

[Gary Gibson]

A lot of discussion this weekend. Here are some conclusions and clarifications...

Skinny people: squat and drink your GOMAD. If you can't really deal with the fact that you're going to lay down some fat on your way to becoming stronger, then get your head right and join us in the squat rack with your gallon of milk when you do.

Fat people: you're probably already eating enough calories to support muscle growth. The fact that you're fat indicates you should probably replace your carbs with fats. Start squatting and you'll start to look normal and your biochemistry will improve. At some point you're going to have to start eating big to keep progress going. I don't know what you'll look like at that point, but it's up to you to determine how much you want to eat and how much more fat and muscle you want to carry. You.

Guys: It's up to you to determine how far you want to take this pursuit of strength as summed up by squatting prowess. Just another internet voice crying among the multitudes here, but I'd say 1.5x bodyweight at least if you're going to bother to show up. 2x bodyweight would be nice. Higher than that is going to take the kind of dedication normally seen among competitors.

Ladies: Same deal, but 1x bodyweight SQ is a good first target if you're going to bother to show up at all. 1.5x bodyweight would be really good.

Kate, my latest Youtube videos have me at home chinning and front squatting in my underwear. That's about as explicit as it gets.

[Weakling]

A lot of discussion this weekend. Here are some conclusions and clarifications...

Skinny people: squat and drink your GOMAD. If you can't really deal with the fact that you're going to lay down some fat on your way to becoming stronger, then get your head right and join us in the squat rack with your gallon of milk when you do.

Fat people: you're probably already eating enough calories to support muscle growth. The fact that you're fat indicates you should probably replace your carbs with fats. Start squatting and you'll start to look normal and your biochemistry will improve. At some point you're going to have to start eating big to keep progress going. I don't know what you'll look like at that point, but it's up to you to determine how much you want to eat and how much more fat and muscle you want to carry. You.

Guys: It's up to you to determine how far you want to take this pursuit of strength as summed up by squatting prowess. Just another internet voice crying among the multitudes here, but I'd say 1.5x bodyweight at least if you're going to bother to show up. 2x bodyweight would be nice. Higher than that is going to take the kind of dedication normally seen among competitors.

Ladies: Same deal, but 1x bodyweight SQ is a good first target if you're going to bother to show up at all. 1.5x bodyweight would be really good.

Kate, my latest Youtube videos have me at home chinning and front squatting in my underwear. That's about as explicit as it gets.

Tease.

[Kate]

A lot of discussion this weekend.

And a lot of going around in circles, seems to me. But I read the thread twice, and got the general ideas you stated above.

I still have a bit of a problem with the "our way or the highway" attitude I see here...

If you can't really deal with the fact that you're going to lay down some fat on your way to becoming stronger, then get your head right and join us in the squat rack with your gallon of milk when you do. ...but I understand that you're passionate about your lifting, and your results speak volumes.


It's up to you to determine how far you want to take this pursuit of strength as summed up by squatting prowess.Exactly. But I'd add: "and at what rate you want to pursue strength."

All of which basically boils down to: "be a grownup, think for yourself, and make your own decisions here." Because one size does *not* fit all.

I said before that I don't have a stake in this discussion... but here I am posting again. I think it's just because I get a tad ornery when someone tells others what their goals should be in order to be "meaningful" or "to bother to show up." (Nobody else gets to determine what's meaningful to me.) That's all. Luckily, I'm independent enough to set my own goals & my own pace. And I do realize that y'all are generalizing and laying out guidelines, and you know what works well for you (and for your trainees, if you're a trainer), and you want others to be successful, and all that. I get it.

-Kate

PS: Gary, re: 1x bodyweight squats for women: see this post (http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/showpost.php?p=85493&postcount=26). I'm inching my way there.

[IlPrincipeBrutto]

All of which basically boils down to: "be a grownup, think for yourself, and make your own decisions here." Because one size does *not* fit all.


I'll second that. Nothing can absolve a person from the necessity to make a decision, and accept the consequences.


IPB