Reply With QuoteI don't know why he wouldn't. This is a really good question that totally wasn't answered in the article entitled, "A Clarification."Originally Posted by Kregna
vegetableboy
Yep. I'm sure he'd approve my posts and listen to what I have to say like he always does
Member
I don't know why he wouldn't. This is a really good question that totally wasn't answered in the article entitled, "A Clarification."
vegetableboy
Jesus dude do you not get what my question is? Who the fuck is the 6k recommendation for, and would eating in the 4000s not suffice?
I can't be bothered retyping this shit like I had to do every single post in my thread about the book price
Member
You realize there are teenage boys who are like 6'1 155lbs eating 3000 a day and gaining nothing right. Some people have extremely difficult time gaining weight. There are stories from these people about needing to eat entire pizzas dipped in olive oil to get the scale to go up. This is a minority group, but it does exist.
Member
Who is the 6K recommended for? Gee, I don't know. I wish there was some kind of clarification. Rip should probably write an article. Maybe a good title would be A Clarification.
You should post this question on Rip's forum.
Member
Show us 1 example of a 6'0 150lb male who did SS for 4 months while eating 6000kcal and ended up getting fat.
Member
http://startingstrength.com/articles...n_rippetoe.pdf
"""A Clarification
by
Mark Rippetoe
1
Okay kids, it has come to my attention that quite a few of you are not doing the program and then
bitching about the results of The Program. Here’s the deal: the novice linear progression, as described
in both Starting Strength: Basic Barbell Training and Practical Programming for Strength Training 2nd
Edition is very specific in the details of its application, and there is not much room for wiggling.
Later, yes, but not at first. In addition, the diet that must be followed is the one that best facilitates
the program, and this will be different for everybody depending on age, body composition, program
adherence, and genetic potential. The goal of the program is not to make you fat. The program is for
increasing strength and muscle mass. The idea is that you must gain some bodyfat in the process if
your bodyfat is low, and that you should lose some bodyfat if it is high. I don’t want you fat, but I
don’t care about seeing your abs. If you want to see your abs, fine – worry about that later. I want you
to get big by getting stronger, and to do this it may be necessary for your bodyfat percentage to go up
in the process. Later, if necessary, the process of losing it can be more easily accomplished when you
have more muscle mass. But right now, just worry about getting strong, and big will be a side-effect, as
will improved body composition. And if you don’t stop misinterpreting this, I will have you all killed.
It is common to want what you cannot have. But it must be kept in mind that the phenomenon of
cause and effect cannot be argued with or circumvented by your wishes and desires. Everyone that has
been a kid or has raised them is familiar with the phenomenon of the “growth spurt,” which happens
naturally during all stages of normal development. Growth occurs sporadically as we develop and
mature; it is not smooth over the course of the whole infant/child/adolescent/teenage continuum,
but within the growth spurt itself there occurs a period of smooth linear increase. We are creating
an “artificial” growth spurt with our training, and if the stress is sufficient and the diet adequate to
facilitate recovery amazing progress can occur. This is why proximity in age to the normal growth
window makes for a more efficient response to this stimulus: the processes by which it is accomplished
are still functioning, and the system is not yet cemented in its final form. The older the trainee, the
further the remove from the capacity to generate a growth spurt. But the stimulus/response relationship
is axiomatic – you get out of it what you put into it, within the context of your ability to respond. You
maximize this ability by training, eating, and resting in the best way possible. """""
.....continued (follow the link)
vegetableboy
That's what I'm wondering. But I'd love to hear an anecdotal story of how several people have tried eating 4-5k and found it just isn't enough. Bumped it up to 5.5-6k and it works fine without getting someone fat (not normal person fat but fat even by our sloppy standards). I know there is a hypothetical group of people (that are common enough to warrant a mention in the clarification article and the previous sources the clarification presumably was clarifying) that need that many calories to spur NOVICE progress. The example is always the 150lb kid. But I just find it hard to believe 6k is really necessary. I used to think it was, because 3.5k didn't work and 6k did, not realising there was a whole host of numbers in between. I think Elliott Hulse said whenever you're close to stalling, add 500 calories. Seems like a sensible way of going about the bulk rather than what I did, which was add 2.5k calories (roughly).
Rippetoe's recommendations in his books have changed with the revised edition so I don't think it's good thinking to say Rippetoe says xyz. Not when I've seen guys on this board come up with ideas that have later been implemented into the revised books (such as using 3s in linear progression and deadlifting on intensity day - methods discovered by guys on the board who used their brains to think for themselves). This last paragraph is at no one in particular, just saying it's not good for you to follow something just because it comes from a credible source
I feel like every post of yours is the same. I can't be bothered posting in Rip's forum. I can't have a proper discussion with him because I'm veggieboy and he's a kid
Besides me? Jesus dude. I need to stop arguing on this forum it's tiresome trying to convince people of something who half read my postsShow us 1 example of a 6'0 150lb male who did SS for 4 months while eating 6000kcal and ended up getting fat.
Last edited by Kregna; 01-15-2017 at 03:14 PM.
Member
Kregna, read the "Underweight novice" part of PPST3 again. Your answer is there: the 16 yo boys who are 6' 170# 8% bf. Also, keep in mind that sometimes the kid is going to play HS sports and only has the summer to build as much muscle and strength as possible, so Rip's 6k is probably right for them.
Regarding eating too much, if a guy starts SS and is skinny fat, the 6k GOMAD is wildly inappropriate, since he'll get fatter, which in turn will make his hormonal environment less prone to useful muscle gain. So if one wants to optimize Ze GainzZz, he should keep an eye on the bf increase as well, so he can adjust properly.
Member
snip
Posting Permissions