When powerlifters cut.
While floating around the web, I cam across some curious pages and articles. Some of which, I felt, might be beneficial to those wondering if they really have to get big and fat before they trim down.
In a word, yes.
This is Dave Gulledge, at around 320 lbs:
A big, monster of a man who could tear Brad Pitt in half. And our current culture might look at him with mild contempt. Some might even question if he works out much, or is simply a huge, soft man. And many getting into this field might have similar reservations. Why spend all this time getting big and fat if I don't have abs?
Well, here's why:
This is Dave after dieting down to 265.
Of course, this is old hat for most of you guys on this forum. However, I thought it might be of some benefit for the newbies, or undecided. I have found zero evidence to suggest it is possible to build any appreciable muscle without packing on size, strength, and weight.
Our bodies simply don't work that way.
(ps Apparently, in 2004, Dave's lifts were, squat: 930, bench: 650, deadlift: 800+)
Dave's brother Kyle trained here for a while in 2005. These people are the cream of the crop, great athletes and great guys.
I'm sorry, but if you think the first picture is 'fat' then you must be watching too much 'Sex in the city' or something.
ps - nice to see you posting again Flux!
I have to disagree with you about the 'before' photo though - he is obviously mostly muscle and not fat and flabby.
What were his squat numbers after he cut?
So in other words, fear not.... there be muscle under that warming layer. Those are some big lifts.
I bet he was happier in the first picture
looks normal to me
maybe something's wrong with me, but he doesn't even look fat in the first picture. is this what we're calling fat these days?
Fluxboy didn't really mean fat. Did you?
Hey guys, thanks for the welcome back.
Originally Posted by Mark Rippetoe
I debated that term, particularly on this forum, until I decided I might try speaking in a language that 140 lb, 6 ft, six-pack Billy might be able to relate to. Because, honestly, when you try talking to him, he seems kinda sensitive to the whole softening up. You safe soften, he hears fatten. You say healthy, he hears fatty, you say mass, he hears fat. He does recognize the term "lean muscular gains" ... unfortunately, I don't.
I've found, in my experiences (and between sets) simply to grunt in their language, "Get fat and strong."
Because right now, some of these kids (jeez, listen to me) have the bodyfat of the cut pic, but the muscle mass of Kate Moss. And I think to make the message simple and concise, it's preferrable to say what they are going to think, rather than convince them what they are thinking is retarded.
"Yup, get fat and strong."
Because otherwise, if you get in this long, annoying conversation about how putting your body in a caloric surplus is neccessary for musclular gain, and in the process you will soften ... BAM!!!
He hear's fatten, you sound like someone trying to con him out of his abs, and he stops listening. Had the exact same conversation with a friend the other day. He is six feet tall, he does weigh about a buck-forty, and I told him he'd have to be about 220 lbs to be a strong man.
"220 lbs!" He wailed, "but I'd be fat!"
"Yes," I replied.
"That's not healthy," he said
"Strong men are harder to kill," I replied (thanks Rip)
"Those scabs on your shins are ugly," he sneared.
"Skinny is uglier," I smiled.
Personally, I think Dave looks better in the top pic than the bottom. Maybe I'm a bit off, but up top he's a mighty viking, someone I'd instinctively look up to. In the second pic, though, I fear I might blow him off as a bodybuilder or something. I just view their image as clownish. Anyway, to guys who think they have to be pretty as women, I find it's best to simply smack them with their worst fears.
Am I wrong here, Rip?
Have you all not been watching the tube or seeing movies lately? If you're not 140 pounds of shredded nothing these days, you're fat.