The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Bigger Stronger Leaner
 
'Full House' ???
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 37148

niksamaras wrote:
I believe that since why are bodybuilders, at one point or another, one should diet down to "stage weight"...



You're in the wrong forum.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

The Mighty Stu
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 9712

BrickHead wrote:
niksamaras wrote:
I believe that since why are bodybuilders, at one point or another, one should diet down to "stage weight". I mean really fucking ripped. At that point he will now how he actually looks like. Fat takes up a lot of space. My buddy had 48-49cm arms. Once he dieted to a 6 pack, his arms went to 41cm. His strength remianed the same, but he was a lot smaller.


It's actually a good idea, but requires a lot of sacrifice.


and a bit of humility :)

S

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

BrickHead
Level

Join date: May 2012
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 2679

The Mighty Stu wrote:
BrickHead wrote:
niksamaras wrote:
I believe that since why are bodybuilders, at one point or another, one should diet down to "stage weight". I mean really fucking ripped. At that point he will now how he actually looks like. Fat takes up a lot of space. My buddy had 48-49cm arms. Once he dieted to a 6 pack, his arms went to 41cm. His strength remianed the same, but he was a lot smaller.


It's actually a good idea, but requires a lot of sacrifice.


and a bit of humility :)

S


Yeah, like when one reduces to 170 to 190 pounds and realizes they're no longer the 220 to 250 pound badass filling out XL and XXL shirts anymore.

Anyway, I think it's a good idea, but can't see if one would go to the extremes it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat if they're not going to get onstage: lack of sleep, hunger, severe dietary restriction, borderline overtraining.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

BlueCollarTr8n
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 2824

BrickHead wrote:
.....would go to the extremes it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat if they're not going to get onstage: lack of sleep, hunger, severe dietary restriction, borderline overtraining.


I'm fine with all that shit, but I draw the line at shaving my legs, etc.!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 37148

BrickHead wrote:

...Anyway, I think it's a good idea, but can't see if one would go to the extremes it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat...



So "it's a good idea" to "go to the extremes (emphasis mine) it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat" but it's not a good idea to go to the "extreme" of putting on a little extra fat while building muscle on a bulk?

How does that make sense? I don't get it.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

The Mighty Stu
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 9712

pushharder wrote:
BrickHead wrote:

...Anyway, I think it's a good idea, but can't see if one would go to the extremes it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat...



So "it's a good idea" to "go to the extremes (emphasis mine) it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat" but it's not a good idea to go to the "extreme" of putting on a little extra fat while building muscle on a bulk?

How does that make sense? I don't get it.


I think that's the point, most people never need to get to a true 5-7% (stage condition), just as most people don't truly need to pack on so much adipose. The extreme leanness helps stage competitors, the extreme bulk (not necessarily muscle, but size, leverage etc) can help powerlifters and strongmen. Neither really applies to the everage gym rat who wants to pack on muscle and look good IMO.

Of course even getting down to an honest 10-12% is beyond most people's willingness to achieve, which I think was the point of the initial comment.

S

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

pushharder wrote:
BrickHead wrote:

...Anyway, I think it's a good idea, but can't see if one would go to the extremes it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat...



So "it's a good idea" to "go to the extremes (emphasis mine) it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat" but it's not a good idea to go to the "extreme" of putting on a little extra fat while building muscle on a bulk?

How does that make sense? I don't get it.



Exactly. There is a double standard based on what is most popular.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

The Mighty Stu wrote:

I think that's the point, most people never need to get to a true 5-7% (stage condition), just as most people don't truly need to pack on so much adipose.


Once again, no one...and I mean NO ONE is saying anyone should pack on any extra amount of "adipose" than what is needed to make sure you grow optimally in terms of muscle mass.

I am not sure why that needs to be repeated so much here.




The extreme leanness helps stage competitors, the extreme bulk (not necessarily muscle, but size, leverage etc) can help powerlifters and strongmen. Neither really applies to the everage gym rat who wants to pack on muscle and look good IMO.



How is it "bulk" can help powerlifters and strongmen but NOT guys in the gym trying to get big and strong?

Wouldn't it make sense for them to do what the big and strong people are doing?



Of course even getting down to an honest 10-12% is beyond most people's willingness to achieve, which I think was the point of the initial comment.

S


That would be because NUMBERS don't mean anything when it comes to how you LOOK.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

pushharder wrote:
niksamaras wrote:
I believe that since why are bodybuilders, at one point or another, one should diet down to "stage weight"...



You're in the wrong forum.




It looks like he is not the only one.

Someone mentioned guys who look more impressive in the off season than on stage.

One of those3 guys is Jo Jo Ntiforo.

I would much rather look like he does in the off season.

I am sure I am not alone....and THAT is probably why this forum is here.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

I am also definitely NOT dissing his on stage form. He looks great in contest condition...but most of us here will never get on stage to compete...and my goals involve what is also a perfect fit for my own life.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SkyNett
Level 4

Join date: Sep 2004
Location: New York, USA
Posts: 3661

Wrong forum - yet the forum is called Bigger, Stronger, LEANER...and it appears to be the same damn thing as the bodybuilding section, with the same exact argument that was going on over there, continuing for 50 pages here....

I don't see the benefit of creating this forum at all - maybe we should have bodybuilding, and a second Competition Bodybuilding forum.....

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

SkyNett wrote:
Wrong forum - yet the forum is called Bigger, Stronger, LEANER...and it appears to be the same damn thing as the bodybuilding section, with the same exact argument that was going on over there, continuing for 50 pages here....

I don't see the benefit of creating this forum at all - maybe we should have bodybuilding, and a second Competition Bodybuilding forum.....


Wow...it wasn't clear that pushharder was responding to a post about STAGE WEIGHT?

Considering we are told that everyone not competing has to avoid ever referring to themselves as a BODYBUILDER, why wouldn't this forum be a good idea and why is it when we talk of NOT competing it causes guys like you to post more about how you hate it?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

cueball
Level 3

Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 1493

Professor X wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
Wrong forum - yet the forum is called Bigger, Stronger, LEANER...and it appears to be the same damn thing as the bodybuilding section, with the same exact argument that was going on over there, continuing for 50 pages here....

I don't see the benefit of creating this forum at all - maybe we should have bodybuilding, and a second Competition Bodybuilding forum.....


Wow...it wasn't clear that pushharder was responding to a post about STAGE WEIGHT?

Considering we are told that everyone not competing has to avoid ever referring to themselves as a BODYBUILDER, why wouldn't this forum be a good idea and why is it when we talk of NOT competing it causes guys like you to post more about how you hate it?


And then YOU post a comparison of a COMPETITIVE BODYBUILDER in off-season, then one of him IN CONTEST SHAPE in response to a post about most never needing to get to that extreme UNLESS COMPETING.

I don't think anyone here is saying it's either or- BUT YOU.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

UtahLama
Level 10

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 6705

Pages of good discussion....and BAM! here we are again.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

steven alex
Level

Join date: Dec 2006
Location:
Posts: 436

I think the full house look is good for those that want it. Fat gets such a bad rap at times but its good that there are some out there that NEED fat to add to their size to be bigger than those that stay lean. Fat can be useful at times and if utilised properly can add substantially to a frame that lacks the muscular development that someone of lower weight may possess. So good luck to you guys who use fat in this way maybe in time a new sub forum will be started by Tnation.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

cueball wrote:
Professor X wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
Wrong forum - yet the forum is called Bigger, Stronger, LEANER...and it appears to be the same damn thing as the bodybuilding section, with the same exact argument that was going on over there, continuing for 50 pages here....

I don't see the benefit of creating this forum at all - maybe we should have bodybuilding, and a second Competition Bodybuilding forum.....


Wow...it wasn't clear that pushharder was responding to a post about STAGE WEIGHT?

Considering we are told that everyone not competing has to avoid ever referring to themselves as a BODYBUILDER, why wouldn't this forum be a good idea and why is it when we talk of NOT competing it causes guys like you to post more about how you hate it?


And then YOU post a comparison of a COMPETITIVE BODYBUILDER in off-season, then one of him IN CONTEST SHAPE in response to a post about most never needing to get to that extreme UNLESS COMPETING.

I don't think anyone here is saying it's either or- BUT YOU.




I posted those pictures because there was a discussion about how everyone looks better in contest shape.

I am not sure what you are even talking about.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

cueball
Level 3

Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 1493

Professor X wrote:
cueball wrote:
Professor X wrote:
SkyNett wrote:
Wrong forum - yet the forum is called Bigger, Stronger, LEANER...and it appears to be the same damn thing as the bodybuilding section, with the same exact argument that was going on over there, continuing for 50 pages here....

I don't see the benefit of creating this forum at all - maybe we should have bodybuilding, and a second Competition Bodybuilding forum.....


Wow...it wasn't clear that pushharder was responding to a post about STAGE WEIGHT?

Considering we are told that everyone not competing has to avoid ever referring to themselves as a BODYBUILDER, why wouldn't this forum be a good idea and why is it when we talk of NOT competing it causes guys like you to post more about how you hate it?


And then YOU post a comparison of a COMPETITIVE BODYBUILDER in off-season, then one of him IN CONTEST SHAPE in response to a post about most never needing to get to that extreme UNLESS COMPETING.

I don't think anyone here is saying it's either or- BUT YOU.




I posted those pictures because there was a discussion about how everyone looks better in contest shape.

I am not sure what you are even talking about.



Whatever, champ. Play dumb if you like.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

cueball wrote:

Whatever, champ. Play dumb if you like.



I will leave that to you.

This was my post:
It looks like he is not the only one.

Someone mentioned guys who look more impressive in the off season than on stage.

One of those guys is Jo Jo Ntiforo.

I would much rather look like he does in the off season.

I am sure I am not alone....and THAT is probably why this forum is here.


Either respond to that or quit making up things to complain about.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

cueball
Level 3

Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 1493

Professor X wrote:
cueball wrote:

Whatever, champ. Play dumb if you like.



I will leave that to you.

This was my post:
It looks like he is not the only one.

Someone mentioned guys who look more impressive in the off season than on stage.

One of those guys is Jo Jo Ntiforo.

I would much rather look like he does in the off season.

I am sure I am not alone....and THAT is probably why this forum is here.


Either respond to that or quit making up things to complain about.



???Still playing dumb I see.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

I see some here still want to argue.

Moving past that, once again, the point is that no, not everyone actually looks more impressive dieted down to contests shape...which is really all this forum is about.

I posted a picture of Ntiforo in the off season...which is pretty much the condition he finds comfortable to gain and make progress at without trying to remain so lean it holds back progress. I would imagine that is the goal of most of us.

Simply put, yes, some people actually do look more impressive in the off season than they do on stage (there are other examples)....which is closer to the condition many of us are describing here.

I have no desire to be fat for the sake of being fat. I have no thoughts that fat helps you gain more muscle in and of itself aside from the concept of leverage and even fascial stretching or the idea of holding a weight during the process of gaining with the goals of making it easier to hold that weight with more muscle.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mtag666
Level 1

Join date: Apr 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 247

Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
BrickHead wrote:

...Anyway, I think it's a good idea, but can't see if one would go to the extremes it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat...



So "it's a good idea" to "go to the extremes (emphasis mine) it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat" but it's not a good idea to go to the "extreme" of putting on a little extra fat while building muscle on a bulk?

How does that make sense? I don't get it.



Exactly. There is a double standard based on what is most popular.



They must not teach reading comprehension in dentist school.
He's saying there's no point for someone not competing to get that low. Of course you twist what is said to further your straw man arguement that everyone else is saying to say ripped forever.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mtag666
Level 1

Join date: Apr 2012
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 247

But I do want to throw this out there, I've read all these Prof X shitstorm threads. The one thing I really agree with him on is that not everyone gains optimally at the same bodyfat, CT even touched on this. I for example started off skinny fat at like 18% bf a few years ago. Now I stay between 12-18%, because for me getting below 12 requires losing to much strength (my main goal atm).

Eventually once I feel I have enough muscle I will cut down and get leaner, hopefully after switching to maintaining weight I'll regain said lost strength. That is a long term plan though. Atm I'm slightly chubby and cool with it, going to drop a few pounds over summer and then repeat.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

UtahLama
Level 10

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 6705

Professor X wrote:
I see some here still want to argue.



Nobody argued while you were gone....it was downright peaceful.


Crazy huh.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 37148

The Mighty Stu wrote:
pushharder wrote:
BrickHead wrote:

...Anyway, I think it's a good idea, but can't see if one would go to the extremes it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat...



So "it's a good idea" to "go to the extremes (emphasis mine) it takes to get to 5 to 7% bodyfat" but it's not a good idea to go to the "extreme" of putting on a little extra fat while building muscle on a bulk?

How does that make sense? I don't get it.


I think that's the point, most people never need to get to a true 5-7% (stage condition), just as most people don't truly need to pack on so much adipose. The extreme leanness helps stage competitors, the extreme bulk (not necessarily muscle, but size, leverage etc) can help powerlifters and strongmen. Neither really applies to the everage gym rat who wants to pack on muscle and look good IMO.

Of course even getting down to an honest 10-12% is beyond most people's willingness to achieve, which I think was the point of the initial comment.

S


If Brick would've said "10 - 12%" my keyboard would not have been engaged. I think 10 - 12% is a worthy goal to which many people should aspire at some point, and like you, I don't think it's extreme.

I do think 5 - 7% is extreme and it takes some true dedication to get there. It also cannot be characterized as "healthy." Of course, neither can an unreasonable level of obesity.

I think we all can agree the middle ground, and its accompanied "healthiness," is the goal (in regards to this thread). The debate here is over the boundaries of the middle ground. Well, the boundaries are not sharp and well defined. Hence, 'round and 'round and 'round we go, where we stop nobody knows.

I CAN say that in my personal case, having started lifting at the ripe old age of 35, I inched along with small gains and kept my bodyfat levels relatively low for several years -- just like many are advocating. Yes, it worked. I went from 165 - 185 and looked pretty good for Joe Average Gym Rat Blow. I was skin calipered at 8 - 11% a few times and probably strayed up to ~15%.

But I got bored with it. I wanted some "radical" change. I was 47 years old and wanted to get significantly bigger. I had always been the small guy growing up and even though 165 - 185 is not necessarily "small" I decided Joe Average Gym Rat Blow was not to be my goal any longer.

I threw away my inhibitions about not seeing my abzzz and went on a tear. I ate and I ate and I ate and I lifted and I lifted and I lifted like I had never done before. Guess what? Really significant changes occurred. Did I get too fat? Yes, probably from an aesthetic standpoint. I did not get too fat from a strength standpoint -- it is true that extra weight, yes, adipose tissue can help make you stronger. No doubt about it.

I chased numbers. I caught them too. I didn't necessarily care about the aesthetics. Being bigger and stronger, but not leaner, was flat-out an exhilarating experience. Example: I started really deadlifting at the age of 45. At 51 I nailed six plates and weighed 225 after being a small guy in all my younger years. I Kroc-rowed the 150's for 35 reps per side at my present age of 52. I nailed a 638 lbs trap bar dead just three months ago. I was, and am, still rock climbing, waterskiing, dirt biking, hiking, snowmobiling and fucking! a ton too.

Bottom line is there definitely is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. But I did NOT achieve the "bigger/stronger" goal until I popped the cork and quit trying to be so fucking "careful."

Having said all that, right now I'm around 220 at 16 - 18% and I do want to lean out a bit. I will get there.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

cueball
Level 3

Join date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 1493

Professor X wrote:
I see some here still want to argue.


The sure do...

Professor X wrote:
Moving past that, once again, the point is that no, not everyone actually looks more impressive dieted down to contests shape...which is really all this forum is about.


Not everyone does, but lots do, and it's a matter of opinion. We already know yours. But thanks for reiterating.

Professor X wrote:
I posted a picture of Ntiforo in the off season...which is pretty much the condition he finds comfortable to gain and make progress at without trying to remain so lean it holds back progress. I would imagine that is the goal of most of us.


Oh we get it. It may work for some. Not so much for others. LOL at SO lean, cause that's what's being preached here, kids.

You're right. I can't even recall the number of times I seen this statement posted: "You need to stay SO lean that you won't progress optimally". What is wrong with people

Professor X wrote:
Simply put, yes, some people actually do look more impressive in the off season than they do on stage (there are other examples)....which is closer to the condition many of us are describing here.


adnauseum

We understand your preference.

Professor X wrote:
I have no desire to be fat for the sake of being fat. I have no thoughts that fat helps you gain more muscle in and of itself aside from the concept of leverage and even fascial stretching or the idea of holding a weight during the process of gaining with the goals of making it easier to hold that weight with more muscle.


However, some have been saying that FOR SOME, holding even a "respectable" amount of extra fat may hinder gains or be unnecessary. But for some reason this is beyond comprehension and a personal attack. Or just flat out wrong.

Can't imagine why someone would take it that way.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
Topic is Locked
This thread has reached its maximum number of replies. Click HERE to start a new topic.