kevpants <3 Brad

kevpants

corkcomp wrote: »

I have to disagree there mate .. I went from 68kg to 84kg over about 11 months and I did not gain any body fat .. I lifted heavy, full body workouts three times per week .. I did cardio every day and eat as much as I could on the workout days, Maybe it was all the cardio that prevented fat gain, but if i had listened to the classic advice I would have cut cardio way down for fear it would hinder muscle growth, but it didnt! ... people are always saying you need to eat a surplus of calories to gain muscle, but you dont need to pig out on non lifting days unless you want to get fat .. im basing this on personal experience, but I am in no way unique, if it is possible for me I dont see why it is not possible for the OP?

What age were you? What height are you?

I don't think you can justify lean muscle mass gains by going from being very small to average. Not trying to insult you or anything. Dunno how to make that statement without sounding like a d1ck.

Very skinny people won't add a lot of fat eating loads and training heavy. Increased bodyfat is a bi-product of a calorie surplus and I can guarantee yours increased however your extra muscle would negate the gain from a visual point of view. Your method obviously limited your bodyfat but would have limited your gains as well.

A key point is also that you weren't cutting fat. You were doing cardio which a lot of people do and I'm not totally against it, it would have kept your fat at bay. You may also think the cardio had no negative effect on your strength and mass gains, but it did. You obviously made gains but they would have been throttled by your cardio.

There is obviously a way to stay pretty lean and put on a bit of muscle. Going from beginner level to a sort of lower intermediate level, I just don't get the point. You're limiting progress but if your goal is to just try to replicate some kind of male model physique thing then fire away. YAWN!

rubadub

corkcomp wrote: »

I have to disagree there mate .. I went from 68kg to 84kg over about 11 months and I did not gain any body fat

And I remained the same weight while losing fat for over a year or so. i.e. building muscle at around the same rate. Cycling average 45-50mins a day too, weights 2-3times a week for about 40-60mins a time.

Who knows though, I could have done better bulking & cutting, but I find eating big and low from day to day is far easier to sustain.

corkcomp

corkcomp wrote: »

I have to disagree there mate .. I went from 68kg to 84kg over about 11 months and I did not gain any body fat .. I lifted heavy, full body workouts three times per week .. I did cardio every day and eat as much as I could on the workout days, Maybe it was all the cardio that prevented fat gain, but if i had listened to the classic advice I would have cut cardio way down for fear it would hinder muscle growth, but it didnt! ... people are always saying you need to eat a surplus of calories to gain muscle, but you dont need to pig out on non lifting days unless you want to get fat .. im basing this on personal experience, but I am in no way unique, if it is possible for me I dont see why it is not possible for the OP?

Not true. The classic advice is that too much or excessive amount of cardio can hinder muscle growth and I'm pretty sure that's accurate. Long distance runners look terrible (flat, little muscle) in my opinion. Of course, people get carried away and think "Oh I'm on a bulk" and they get fat and do no cardio whatsoever. This is just laziness and/or a lack of education when it comes to fitness.

People are always saying that you need a calorie surplus to put on muscle gain because that is the most basic thing you learn about lifting weights and fitness. Calorie deficit = lose weight. Calorie surplus = gain weight. EDIT: People get it wrong because they either over do it (especially on a bulk )

To truly know how effective your regimen was, we would need to know exactly how many calories you consumed and how many calories you were burning and other factors such as your bodyfat %, lean muscle mass etc to know truly how effective your regimen was. I don't think it's as simple as saying "Well I ate loads and ran loads so if it works for me, it can work for you too"

Not that black and white.

corkcomp

kevpants wrote: »

What age were you? What height are you?

I don't think you can justify lean muscle mass gains by going from being very small to average. Not trying to insult you or anything. Dunno how to make that statement without sounding like a d1ck.

Very skinny people won't add a lot of fat eating loads and training heavy. Increased bodyfat is a bi-product of a calorie surplus and I can guarantee yours increased however your extra muscle would negate the gain from a visual point of view. Your method obviously limited your bodyfat but would have limited your gains as well.

A key point is also that you weren't cutting fat. You were doing cardio which a lot of people do and I'm not totally against it, it would have kept your fat at bay. You may also think the cardio had no negative effect on your strength and mass gains, but it did. You obviously made gains but they would have been throttled by your cardio.

There is obviously a way to stay pretty lean and put on a bit of muscle. Going from beginner level to a sort of lower intermediate level, I just don't get the point. You're limiting progress but if your goal is to just try to replicate some kind of male model physique thing then fire away. YAWN!

see, I made the gains I wanted ... My weight is average now, but i have cut back to one full body workout a week, If i had kept up my regeime up to 2 months ago I could continue to gain ... to answer the other Q, my body fat is 12% .. anything less and I have to wear a jacket indoors lol!
Height is 184cm ... I was doing 50 mins for hard enough cardio * 6 per week ...
I dont get your point at all TBH, my goal was to be around 13st and with a lowish body fat, which is where I am .. oh and dont think for a second that i am a naturally skinny hard gainer type, I have been at nearly 30% BF and 17.5st 5 or 6 years ago so I know whats involved in body transformation, whether it is weight loss or gain! I think one of the best judges of fat gain / loss for most people is 1. the mirror, but most importantly waist size .. if you can gain while keeping your belt at the same notch then things are looking good!

rubadubs situation above is something I have seen few times before, if you do things right, you can drop fat and add muscle at the same time

While we are on it my personal experience was when I was a total n00b starting off (@ 21 years old) and thought the whole "adding muscle" must just come naturally to me as I went from 12 stone to 14 stone in 6/7 months and being at 10% bodyfat.

But this was definitely n00by gains as I have to be more in tune now than ever before (at 25 yrs old)

celestial

The whole idea that you can't build muscle while aiming for a calorie deficit or without gaining fat is nonsense. Lots of people out there are losing fat and putting on muscle at the same time - you're talking about a period of weeks and months where you hit a deficit some days and not on others - you're training hard and burning fat and also adding muscle because you are finding the cals somewhere. A couple of years back my weight fluctuated by only a few kgs yet it was obvious I was packing on some muscle and my jeans/tshirts were swimming on me.

So let's put that to bed. What is true though is that the AMOUNT of muscle mass is restricted by the amount of cals you are taking in - if you wanna get real big you gotta eat real big, and you better believe you're gonna get a bit of pudge doing that.

Lazyitis

rubadub wrote: »

You can vary your intake around your training times, eating a daily surplus of calories when recovering, and eating less other days, so you can have an overall weekly deficit but a surplus at certain times. Just like very short bulk & cut periods.

Have a read here http://www.teamtestforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=761

This link looks like exactly what I was after and seems to be the general consensus on what's possible.

kevpants wrote: »

Was gonna say this when I read your log.

You can't do it. Sorry.

Your end goal seems to be to be big and lean. You can arrive at that conclusion but not linearly. What I mean is your bodyfat must increase if you want to gain muscle mass. Dieting may be on your agenda later.

Any suggestions at avoiding this process are fanciful. You can believe them if you like but in 6 months you'll wish you didn't.

I'll take this on board aswell. For maximum gains it seems like you have to go down this route, but I'd be happy with building up gradually even if it means taking longer to get where I want. Do you not think there's any merit in the continuos cut and bulk arguement?

From what I am doing at the moment and from what I've recorded in my log I agree with you that I won't get where I want, but from what I've picked up here it'll go some way to improving on what I'm currently doing and I aim to keep improving continually so thanks for all the replies so far.

kevpants

corkcomp wrote: »

see, I made the gains I wanted ... My weight is average now, but i have cut back to one full body workout a week, If i had kept up my regeime up to 2 months ago I could continue to gain ... to answer the other Q, my body fat is 12% .. anything less and I have to wear a jacket indoors lol!
Height is 184cm ... I was doing 50 mins for hard enough cardio * 6 per week ...
I dont get your point at all TBH, my goal was to be around 13st and with a lowish body fat, which is where I am .. oh and dont think for a second that i am a naturally skinny hard gainer type, I have been at nearly 30% BF and 17.5st 5 or 6 years ago so I know whats involved in body transformation, whether it is weight loss or gain! I think one of the best judges of fat gain / loss for most people is 1. the mirror, but most importantly waist size .. if you can gain while keeping your belt at the same notch then things are looking good!

A few points.

65kg at 184cm is tremendously skinny.

The first year going from that to your current weight fall well within the realm of noob gains. You could put on muscle lifting weights and eating only rice cakes. If you'd attempted to keep going with your regime you'd get nowhere.

That first year or so is a real honeymoon period. It's not so easy to keep progressing month after month.

celestial wrote: »

The whole idea that you can't build muscle while aiming for a calorie deficit or without gaining fat is nonsense. Lots of people out there are losing fat and putting on muscle at the same time - you're talking about a period of weeks and months where you hit a deficit some days and not on others - you're training hard and burning fat and also adding muscle because you are finding the cals somewhere. A couple of years back my weight fluctuated by only a few kgs yet it was obvious I was packing on some muscle and my jeans/tshirts were swimming on me.

I think some people idea of "packing on muscle" differs wildly from mine. If your T-Shirts get too big it's a safe bet to say you aren't packing on anything. You may appear more muscular but this is really a bi-product of less fat.

I don't get your logic on the calorie deficit thing. You'll find the calories somewhere when on a deficit? Do you work for the department of finance ?

celestial wrote: »

So let's put that to bed. What is true though is that the AMOUNT of muscle mass is restricted by the amount of cals you are taking in - if you wanna get real big you gotta eat real big, and you better believe you're gonna get a bit of pudge doing that.

This is the thing. When people ask how to put on muscle I think they want to actually put on some serious weight. Realistically people want to know how to look like Tyler Durden, I'm not really the best person to advise on that!

Really need to qualify that question in future, I think I'll ask people to choose between.



and



Brad or Bill?

celestial

kevpants wrote: »

A few points.

65kg at 184cm is tremendously skinny.

The first year going from that to your current weight fall well within the realm of noob gains. You could put on muscle lifting weights and eating only rice cakes. If you'd attempted to keep going with your regime you'd get nowhere.

That first year or so is a real honeymoon period. It's not so easy to keep progressing month after month.



I think some people idea of "packing on muscle" differs wildly from mine. If your T-Shirts get too big it's a safe bet to say you aren't packing on anything. You may appear more muscular but this is really a bi-product of less fat.

I don't get your logic on the calorie deficit thing. You'll find the calories somewhere when on a deficit? Do you work for the department of finance ?




This is the thing. When people ask how to put on muscle I think they want to actually put on some serious weight. Realistically people want to know how to look like Tyler Durden, I'm not really the best person to advise on that!

Really need to qualify that question in future, I think I'll ask people to choose between.



and



Brad or Bill?

Yup nail on head and I knew that's where you were coming from. Putting on muscle for most people is pretty much Tyler Durden or a bit more (hopefully a bit more as man he is pure scrawn!)

Magic Eight Ball

kevpants last post cleared it up for me.

celestial wrote: »

he is pure scrawn!

He looked impressive in Troy, Fight Club was just low bodyfat me thinks.

Roper

Quick question now and be honest everyone. Do the people who continually post up pics of Brad Pitt crack one out to him occasionally? Because there's an unhealthy amount of photos posted with him in him as the ideal body.

I have to agree with kevpants here.

podge57

Roper wrote: »

Quick question now and be honest everyone. Do the people who continually post up pics of Brad Pitt crack one out to him occasionally? Because there's an unhealthy amount of photos posted with him in him as the ideal body.

I have to agree with kevpants here.

if you google "get a body like Brad Pitt in Fight Club", there is an incredible number of links, there seems to be quite an obsession

Nothing at all to do with the fact that he is a sex symbol and been voted womens ideal man or hottest man ever year after year after year.

Look, I don't fancy the guy but I can see why guys want to look like him and it's probably why most guys think he is muscley in that shot, strategically placed fake tan and low body fat. I mean most guys who are out of shape don't get or understand the whole low body fat thing anyway.

corkcomp

Personally I would prefer to take a bit longer to reach my goals in terms of muscle gain rather than be one of the ones coming back in years time complaining that my body fat went way up and now I want to lose i

of course if your goals are to pack on as much muscle as possible and you REALLY don't mind getting fat then yeah eat everything in sight but IMO that muscle won't do anything for ya if you end up fat! Keep in mind that this is a fitness forum and a lot of people lift weights for general health and so they can look good and you can easily achieve this without having to bulk and cut

rubadub

kevpants wrote: »

I don't get your logic on the calorie deficit thing. You'll find the calories somewhere when on a deficit?

He said you are not on the deficit all the time, so it is in effect cutting & bulking on a sort of micro scale

celestial wrote: »

Lots of people out there are losing fat and putting on muscle at the same time - you're talking about a period of weeks and months where you hit a deficit some days and not on others - you're training hard and burning fat and also adding muscle because you are finding the cals somewhere.

Deleted User wrote: »

I went from 12 stone to 14 stone in 6/7 months and being at 10% bodyfat.

And corkcomp went from 64kg to 84kg now if he stayed 10% fat throughout, then he did add fat, 2kg of fat, since at a stable 10% you go from 6.4kg to 8.4kg fat.

I am not sure if some people mix up the math or get confused by this concept. This has come up before about why people might underestimate the BF% of lean mildly muscular guys. They see a giant BBer and he is said to be 5% BF, then they see a smaller guy with the same thickness of skin covering and presume he is also 5% BF, which is incorrect. He will be higher BF% with the same thickness of skin/fat covering. The volume of a sphere does not increase linearly with the surface area of a sphere.

celestial

rubadub wrote: »

He said you are not on the deficit all the time, so it is in effect cutting & bulking on a sort of micro scale

Exactly - It's amusing that people can think that there is a magical 'I-am-on-a-calorie-deficit-and-can't-possibly-build-muscle' state where you never hit a surplus and thus can never add any mass.


And corkcomp went from 64kg to 84kg now if he stayed 10% fat throughout, then he did add fat, 2kg of fat, since at a stable 10% you go from 6.4kg to 8.4kg fat.

I am not sure if some people mix up the math or get confused by this concept. This has come up before about why people might underestimate the BF% of lean mildly muscular guys. They see a giant BBer and he is said to be 5% BF, then they see a smaller guy with the same thickness of skin covering and presume he is also 5% BF, which is incorrect. He will be higher BF% with the same thickness of skin/fat covering. The volume of a sphere does not increase linearly with the surface area of a sphere.[/QUOTE]

kevpants

rubadub wrote: »

He said you are not on the deficit all the time, so it is in effect cutting & bulking on a sort of micro scale

I understand. The phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" springs to mind. Undoubtedly the best way to get bigger and stronger is to continuously train hard and fuel your recovery. Constantly interrupting this process is counterproductive.

celestial wrote: »

Exactly - It's amusing that people can think that there is a magical 'I-am-on-a-calorie-deficit-and-can't-possibly-build-muscle' state where you never hit a surplus and thus can never add any mass.

I think the most amusing thing is the fact that people who seem to want to get bigger are so unwilling to go without a six pack. This kind of micro bulking and cutting with emphasis on making sure no fat is added is narcissistic madness.

That's why I think defining what people mean when they say they want to bulk up. If they just want to achieve the washboard stomach and excite underage girls, the High School Muscial look, I'll back out of the conversation lest we get into another of these debates.

If it's your goal I'm happy for you, goals are the be all and end all. Just don't call it adding muscle or bulking up, I think that's a misnomer.

corkcomp

kevpants wrote: »

I understand. The phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" springs to mind. Undoubtedly the best way to get bigger and stronger is to continuously train hard and fuel your recovery. Constantly interrupting this process is counterproductive.



I think the most amusing thing is the fact that people who seem to want to get bigger are so unwilling to go without a six pack. This kind of micro bulking and cutting with emphasis on making sure no fat is added is narcissistic madness.

That's why I think defining what people mean when they say they want to bulk up. If they just want to achieve the washboard stomach and excite underage girls, the High School Muscial look, I'll back out of the conversation lest we get into another of these debates.

If it's your goal I'm happy for you, goals are the be all and end all. Just don't call it adding muscle or bulking up, I think that's a misnomer.

what the hell is wrong with wanting a six pack and washboard stomach? of course some people may prefer to pack on muscle at an even quicker rate and have it stored under layers of fat .. If you are getting in enough ( a LOT) of cals PWO then its quite possible to gain muscle mass, while making sure you are around maintenance on other days... you only have to look at well respscted PT's who are in great shape, how many of those do you think got fat in pursuit of their goals?

imported_guy

there are alot of ways you can do both but i'll hit the 2 main ones

1) good ketogenic deit (Very cool)
2) start juicing (not so cool)

1) a ketogenic diet can keep the fat off easily (the macros are 65%fat/35%protein/5%carbs), and you need to keep calories a little bit above maintainance, you will burn more fat than you will build up with the caloric surplus, and your strength and muscle hypertrophy will keep increasing, do alot of low intensity cardio (around 120bpm) and lift HEAVY, and focus on compund lifts, i.e, squat, deadlift, bench press, eat adequate suppliments and shop around for the best value

2) juicing is illegal in ireland (unless you have a prescription) you should attain your natural genetic potential before even thinking about it, but if you move to a country where they are legal, and you start doing roids under supervision of a physician, you can achive a 60 inch chest and 25 inch biceps and what not with 4% body fat.

rubadub

kevpants wrote: »

The phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none" springs to mind. Undoubtedly the best way to get bigger and stronger is to continuously train hard and fuel your recovery. Constantly interrupting this process is counterproductive.

But this is what I wonder about, have studies been done? As I said before I remained the same weight and "who knows though, I could have done better bulking & cutting, but I find eating big and low from day to day is far easier to sustain".

If during 1 year I ate 2000kcal 50% of the week and 3000kcal for the rest, and trained with the same "effort", would I have built more muscle and/or lost more fat than if I had gone 6 months 3000kcal and 6 months 2000kcal, or whatever break up you want, 9 months "bulking", 3 months "cutting", but with the same overall calorie intake for that year.

Even if it is "30% better" to do long term bulk & cuts it might be preferable for casual trainees (not competing etc) to just do something along the lines of that Anacat protocol. I would find daily life more uncomfortable having to eat more than I want for 6 months, and then having a lowered immune system and being grumpy & hungry etc during a cut. Training is not overly important to me, many of my mates do not even know I do it since I rarely mention it.

This kind of micro bulking and cutting with emphasis on making sure no fat is added is narcissistic madness.

And conversely many would call some power lifters getting fat on purpose just to aid their strength madness.

As you guys may have already spotted, Dragan & I will soon be sharing workout goals (read: t-ha & Dragan wanna be getting’ ‘emselves hyyuuuge this winter!!) but neither of us particularly wants to stick on a pile of blubber,

I don't think that is narcissistic.

imported_guy

see the one main thing people dont get is WHEN YOU LIFT WEIGHTS YOU USE ENERGY FROM GLYCOGEN STORES AND FATS (so here, lifting on a ketogenic diet as i mentioned has its advantages, theres not much glycogen to use, just fats)

SO IF YOU LIFT HARD + HEAVY, YOU BURN FAT, IF YOU KEEP A CALORIC SURPLUS YOU WILL ADD SOME MORE FAT BUT IT WILL BE INSIGNIFICANT COMPARED TO HOW MUCH YOU BURN WITH LIFTING, AND HOW MUCH MUSCLE YOU PUT ON.





hmm ive been misreading stuff i think, the thread title says can you gain muscle on a deficit, answer is NO YOU CANT

but what the question should have been is CAN YOU ADD MUSCLE AND BURN FAT, the answer is YES YOU CAN

rubadub

rubadub wrote: »

He said you are not on the deficit all the time, so it is in effect cutting & bulking on a sort of micro scale




And corkcomp went from 64kg to 84kg now if he stayed 10% fat throughout, then he did add fat, 2kg of fat, since at a stable 10% you go from 6.4kg to 8.4kg fat.

I am not sure if some people mix up the math or get confused by this concept. This has come up before about why people might underestimate the BF% of lean mildly muscular guys. They see a giant BBer and he is said to be 5% BF, then they see a smaller guy with the same thickness of skin covering and presume he is also 5% BF, which is incorrect. He will be higher BF% with the same thickness of skin/fat covering. The volume of a sphere does not increase linearly with the surface area of a sphere.

Hey rubadub, will you explain this to me in a non-technical way ? Is it just simply down to the fact that as you get bigger, your bf% increases naturally due to the muscle mass you have added ? Confused by this bit.

TommyKnocker

Deleted User wrote: »

Hey rubadub, will you explain this to me in a non-technical way ? Is it just simply down to the fact that as you get bigger, your bf% increases naturally due to the muscle mass you have added ? Confused by this bit.

Hi There

I think it is simply that 64kg @ 10% BF gives you the following stats

Lean Mass = 57.6kg
Fat Mass = 6.4kg

If you go to 84kg and stay at 10% BF, then your stats are

Lean Mass = 77.6kg
Fat Mass = 8.4kg

So although you have increased your Lean Mass by 20kg, you have also added 2kg of BF.

So the claim that you added lean mass but did not add BF is not true. You just maintained the same % of BF through out your bulk. Though at these new numbers you should look much more cut and defined than you did at the lower weight.


Best Regards,

M

imported_guy

Deleted User wrote: »

Hey rubadub, will you explain this to me in a non-technical way ? Is it just simply down to the fact that as you get bigger, your bf% increases naturally due to the muscle mass you have added ? Confused by this bit.

if youre fat and you start lifting, and eat enough calories to build muscle (insignificant ammount of surplus for fat gain)

you will loose fat because youre lifting, which increases your metabolic acticity, and uses fat for energy when lifting/resting

so you will keep loosing fat, even if youre on a small caloric surplus

but what he probably means is that, lets say your lean mass is 100lbs, and X% is fat, Y% is muscle/lean, as Y goes up, X will go down because youre not adding fat, just lean mass.

celestial

Deleted User wrote: »

Hey rubadub, will you explain this to me in a non-technical way ? Is it just simply down to the fact that as you get bigger, your bf% increases naturally due to the muscle mass you have added ? Confused by this bit.

No - it's simply just that 10% of a small number is less than 10% of a big number.

So if you weigh 64kg at 10% bodyfat and then go to 84kg - and your bodyfat percentage does not change - then you have technically gotten fatter because 10% of your weight is still fat (and you have put on more weight). So instead of 6.4kg of your weight being made up of fat (10% of 64kg = 6.4kg), now 8.4kg of your weight is made up of fat (10% of 84kg = 8.4kg).

Make sense?

BossArky

Deleted User wrote: »

Hey rubadub, will you explain this to me in a non-technical way ? Is it just simply down to the fact that as you get bigger, your bf% increases naturally due to the muscle mass you have added ? Confused by this bit.

10% of a bigger number is more than 10% of a smaller number.

--> 10% of 64kg = 6.4kg
--> 10% of 84kg = 8.4kg

If the same person went from 64kg to 84kg, but kept just 6.4kg of bodyfat, then there overall bodyfat % will drop from 10% to about 7.5%. Calculations below.

bodyweight = (lean mass in kg / (1 - target body fat %))
64kg = (57.6 / (1 - 0.1)) --> assuming bodyweight of 64kg & bodyfat of 10%

So, assuming a bodyweight of 84kg with just the same 6.4kg bodyfat gives the following....

84.0kg = (77.6 / (1 - X)) ---> so X (i.e. bodyfat) works out as around 7.5%

kevpants

corkcomp wrote: »

what the hell is wrong with wanting a six pack and washboard stomach? of course some people may prefer to pack on muscle at an even quicker rate and have it stored under layers of fat .. If you are getting in enough ( a LOT) of cals PWO then its quite possible to gain muscle mass, while making sure you are around maintenance on other days... you only have to look at well respscted PT's who are in great shape, how many of those do you think got fat in pursuit of their goals?

Ya see this is the thing. Every time I mention fat being added when gaining muscle everyone starts defending their washboard stomachs and bleating on about fat powerlifters not understanding. First things first, I'm not fat, nor would I ever entertain the notion of being fat. I'm in a very high risk group for heart disease so it's a no no. I am however 223lbs, quite lean, and quite strong (even for the internet). My point is you might have to put up with the washboard dissappearing if you want to become bigger or stronger than average.

Skinny blokes of Ireland I have a message for you. Your washboard stomach is not an achievement to be proud of, you are not "athletic" or "muscular". You are just a skinny bloke.

rubadub wrote: »

But this is what I wonder about, have studies been done? As I said before I remained the same weight and "who knows though, I could have done better bulking & cutting, but I find eating big and low from day to day is far easier to sustain".

If during 1 year I ate 2000kcal 50% of the week and 3000kcal for the rest, and trained with the same "effort", would I have built more muscle and/or lost more fat than if I had gone 6 months 3000kcal and 6 months 2000kcal, or whatever break up you want, 9 months "bulking", 3 months "cutting", but with the same overall calorie intake for that year.

Even if it is "30% better" to do long term bulk & cuts it might be preferable for casual trainees (not competing etc) to just do something along the lines of that Anacat protocol. I would find daily life more uncomfortable having to eat more than I want for 6 months, and then having a lowered immune system and being grumpy & hungry etc during a cut. Training is not overly important to me, many of my mates do not even know I do it since I rarely mention it.

But what's a "casual trainee"? You either have a goal or you don't. If you want to look like a CK model I've already stated I bow to others knowledge of how to get there. If you ask about muscle the best way is to eat with recovery in mind, not body image. Hell you may not get any noticeable fat if you're lucky, skinny blokes who want to be bigger are so far removed from fat it's not an issue. So long as they train hard they won't get fat. If they eat to recover and do nothing to recover from then yeah, it's fat town.

rubadub wrote: »

And conversely many would call some power lifters getting fat on purpose just to aid their strength madness.

See what I mean, the fat powerlifter card. I'm gonna have to start qualifying all my posts with a raunchy photograph of myself. People obviously think I'm a puddin.

Roper

I think I know what's wrong here. There are just two ideas of what putting on muscle is.

kevpants

Roper wrote: »

I think I know what's wrong here. There are just two ideas of what putting on muscle is.

I'm telling ya the Bill or Brad question is the way forward.

BossArky

kevpants wrote: »

I'm telling ya the Bill or Brad question is the way forward.

Any lean-ish actors called Ted? It would have a better ring to it:

• Bill & Teds bogus fat loss
• Bill & Teds excellent muscle gain

Father Ted??

Roper

kevpants wrote: »

I'm telling ya the Bill or Brad question is the way forward.

What about Cannon or Ball?

Khannie

kevpants wrote: »

Skinny blokes of Ireland I have a message for you. Your washboard stomach is not an achievement to be proud of, you are not "athletic" or "muscular". You are just a skinny bloke.

I'm "a skinny bloke". I'm 171 cm and 63-65KG most of the time. I'm happy with how I look, though that has nothing to do with how or why I train. Nothing.

You don't think I look good? Like I give a sh*t. :rolleyes:

Roper

In defence of kevpants, I don't think he's trying to insult all skinny blokes. It's just that most people who say they want to get ripped just mean they want to look ripped.

kevpants

Roper wrote: »

What about Cannon or Ball?

Jake



or the fat man

Khannie

Roper wrote: »

In defence of kevpants, I don't think he's trying to insult all skinny blokes. It's just that most people who say they want to get ripped just mean they want to look ripped.

Fair enough. What's the difference though?

kevpants

Khannie wrote: »

I'm "a skinny bloke". I'm 171 cm and 63-65KG most of the time. I'm happy with how I look, though that has nothing to do with how or why I train. Nothing.

You don't think I look good? Like I give a sh*t. :rolleyes:

You go girl*

Roper wrote: »

In defence of kevpants, I don't think he's trying to insult all skinny blokes. It's just that most people who say they want to get ripped just mean they want to look ripped.

This is what I meant. People wanting to look muscular most of the time just want abs. The answer to the question they are asking isn't right because...ehm...the question they are asking isn't what they are really asking...



* Joking. You just went a bit "Shaniqua don't need no baby daddy on Ricki Lake" there for a minute Khannie.

imported_guy

when your wearing clothes what do girls notice first, 6 pack abs, or chest and arms?






























































no hate on brad, just sayin LOL

Captain Furball

This is the fitness forum, not the power lifting beefcake forum.

celestial

kevpants wrote: »

Ya see this is the thing. Every time I mention fat being added when gaining muscle everyone starts defending their washboard stomachs and bleating on about fat powerlifters not understanding. First things first, I'm not fat, nor would I ever entertain the notion of being fat. I'm in a very high risk group for heart disease so it's a no no. I am however 223lbs, quite lean, and quite strong (even for the internet). My point is you might have to put up with the washboard dissappearing if you want to become bigger or stronger than average.

Skinny blokes of Ireland I have a message for you. Your washboard stomach is not an achievement to be proud of, you are not "athletic" or "muscular". You are just a skinny bloke.



But what's a "casual trainee"? You either have a goal or you don't. If you want to look like a CK model I've already stated I bow to others knowledge of how to get there. If you ask about muscle the best way is to eat with recovery in mind, not body image. Hell you may not get any noticeable fat if you're lucky, skinny blokes who want to be bigger are so far removed from fat it's not an issue. So long as they train hard they won't get fat. If they eat to recover and do nothing to recover from then yeah, it's fat town.



See what I mean, the fat powerlifter card. I'm gonna have to start qualifying all my posts with a raunchy photograph of myself. People obviously think I'm a puddin.

I know it's just the internetz, but your posts come across like there are only two kinds of people who want to get muscular - skinny runts who are after washboard abs or big dudes who aren't afraid of eating. Most people fall in between - you'll find most just want to add some muscle, lose fat and look good. This pretty much doesn't involve getting fat in the pursuit of muscle.

Did you not also put on a pile of weight (fat and muscle) last summer and then lose all the fat again? Your 'nor would I ever entertain the notion of being fat" claim was a head-scratcher.

It's all about preferences at the end of the day and I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying - it's just that people have different ideas of what constitutes 'muscular' - for most blokes it ain't about getting muscular so much as 'toned' - low bodyfat which reveals the muscle beneath (I'm not one of em, mind).

EDIT - Roper pretty much said what I posted there - people just wanna be ripped not hyooooge

imported_guy

Captain Furball wrote: »

This is the fitness forum, not the power lifting beefcake forum.

power lifiting is a form of fitness/exercise regime, and beefcake is a degradatory term used by skinny people who's girlfriends like more alpha + musclar people who go to the gym...... no hate jus sayin.

Celestial, B-Builder, Bossarky and imported_guy, thanks for explainign that to me. Kind of obvious when I think about it, guess that's why me and general arithmetic never bode too well in school !

slicus ricus

This is all very confusing! Kevpants, i would regard you as a voice of reason for the most part but I have to disagree with you slightly here. I don't think people necessarily want to look like either Brad Pitt in fightclub or like Bill Kazmaier. I can only speak for myself in this one but I would be quite confident that others would have a similar take on it.

I'm at the stage now where I train basically to stay in shape - I want to definately keep the muscle i've managed to put on and would like to put on a bit more if possible - in order to do this, i'm willing to eat a high protein diet. I've been training long enough to realise that there's only so much you can do naturally and to be quite honest, i don't want to achieve the results that you would do by juicing.

Now, while i've mentioned that i would like to put on muscle, i don't want to increase my body fat levels too much beyond where they are now - i've done so in the past and i wasn't happy about the results. I don't want to be reaching single figure body fat percentages either and certainly don't crave the washboard stomach that Kevpants was referring to.

Essentially, I want to develop more muscle without increasing my bodyfat % (yes, I get the fact that bf% is proportionate to actual weight before someone points this out again). My goal doesn't fit into the Brad or Bill category - i don't want to get a seriously low bf% and I don't want to be anywhere near as big as Bill Kazmaier. While I have huge respect for people who are involved in powerlifting, I would not personally be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to be competitive at bench/squat/deadlifts and i'm ok with that fact.

While obviously not everyone would be coming from the same angle as me with their training, i'm sure there are people who are. For the sake of constructive chat here, it would make sense if people properly clarified what they want from their training so people can offer advice rather than get into arguments due to a lack clarity.

Captain Furball

slicus ricus wrote: »

This is all very confusing! Kevpants, i would regard you as a voice of reason for the most part but I have to disagree with you slightly here. I don't think people necessarily want to look like either Brad Pitt in fightclub or like Bill Kazmaier. I can only speak for myself in this one but I would be quite confident that others would have a similar take on it.

I'm at the stage now where I train basically to stay in shape - I want to definately keep the muscle i've managed to put on and would like to put on a bit more if possible - in order to do this, i'm willing to eat a high protein diet. I've been training long enough to realise that there's only so much you can do naturally and to be quite honest, i don't want to achieve the results that you would do by juicing.

Now, while i've mentioned that i would like to put on muscle, i don't want to increase my body fat levels too much beyond where they are now - i've done so in the past and i wasn't happy about the results. I don't want to be reaching single figure body fat percentages either and certainly don't crave the washboard stomach that Kevpants was referring to.

Essentially, I want to develop more muscle without increasing my bodyfat % (yes, I get the fact that bf% is proportionate to actual weight before someone points this out again). My goal doesn't fit into the Brad or Bill category - i don't want to get a seriously low bf% and I don't want to be anywhere near as big as Bill Kazmaier. While I have huge respect for people who are involved in powerlifting, I would not personally be willing to make the sacrifices necessary to be competitive at bench/squat/deadlifts and i'm ok with that fact.

While obviously not everyone would be coming from the same angle as me with their training, i'm sure there are people who are. For the sake of constructive chat here, it would make sense if people properly clarified what they want from their training so people can offer advice rather than get into arguments due to a lack clarity.

95% of people who visit this forum or any other forum want what you want.I don't see why you have to be all apologetic about it.This thread is about can you put on muscle while losing fat, the answer was yes of course you can.

justsomebloke

I just want to know when getting bigger became more appealing then getting stronger:(

Roper

Khannie here's the distinction as I see it. Maybe others will disagree but this is quite subjective.

Someone who talks about muscle gain, but really just wants to see their abs, probably doesn't have to do any additional lifting, they just need to cut their bodyfat right down and they will get that Pitt-esque physique. These people talk about getting "ripped", getting "washboard abs" etc. etc. but don't want to put on any extra weight.

That's a fine and dandy goal, and a lot of people have it but what irritates people like me and, I think it's safe to say, my new best friend kevpants is that people equate being in great shape and fit with single digit bodyfat, no matter what that the rest of the scores on your chart are.

mloc

Roper wrote: »

Khannie here's the distinction as I see it. Maybe others will disagree but this is quite subjective.

Someone who talks about muscle gain, but really just wants to see their abs, probably doesn't have to do any additional lifting, they just need to cut their bodyfat right down and they will get that Pitt-esque physique. These people talk about getting "ripped", getting "washboard abs" etc. etc. but don't want to put on any extra weight.

That's a fine and dandy goal, and a lot of people have it but what irritates people like me and, I think it's safe to say, my new best friend kevpants is that people equate being in great shape and fit with single digit bodyfat, no matter what that the rest of the scores on your chart are.

QFT

slicus ricus

Captain Furball wrote: »

95% of people who visit this forum or any other forum want what you want.I don't see why you have to be all apologetic about it.This thread is about can you put on muscle while losing fat, the answer was yes of course you can.

Just to clarify, I didn't once say that I wanted to lose fat while putting on muscle.

Is it possible to put on muscle when losing fat i.e. on a calorie deficit? No. What is possible is that you can gain muscle while on calorie maintenance - i.e. neither deficit nor surplus. You can also look more muscular through losing bodyfat through calorie deficit, however, you won't actually be putting on muscle. I think it's important to understand that distinction.

Captain Furball

slicus ricus wrote: »

Just to clarify, I didn't once say that I wanted to lose fat while putting on muscle.

Is it possible to put on muscle when losing fat i.e. on a calorie deficit? No. What is possible is that you can gain muscle while on calorie maintenance - i.e. neither deficit nor surplus. You can also look more muscular through losing bodyfat through calorie deficit, however, you won't actually be putting on muscle. I think it's important to understand that distinction.

As I said most people want to do what you want, except they say I want to lose fat while gaining muscle.You seemed to cover your ass fairly well with your replies.

TommyKnocker

slicus ricus wrote: »

Just to clarify, I didn't once say that I wanted to lose fat while putting on muscle.

Is it possible to put on muscle when losing fat i.e. on a calorie deficit? No. What is possible is that you can gain muscle while on calorie maintenance - i.e. neither deficit nor surplus. You can also look more muscular through losing bodyfat through calorie deficit, however, you won't actually be putting on muscle. I think it's important to understand that distinction.

Hi

I would have to disagree with the gaining muscle while eating maintenance calories. If your expending the same number of calories that you consume, I don't see how you could gain anything.

I do believe (because it seems to be working for me) that you can eat modest enough surplus and gain lean mass while maintaining the same BF %.

I started a 5x5 routine at the end of July and took more notice of my diet. At the start my stats were as follows

Weight 11st 7lb
BF% 13.5

Last Saturday Morning my stats were

Weight 11st 10lb
BF % 13

I am 46yr old male @ 5' 6". My aesthetic goal is to try and get to 12st with approx with 10% BF.

Primarily I workout to stay as fit and healthy as possible as I head for the big 50. However I would be more than happy to gain a physique more similar to Brad than to Bill. The everyday "Brad" physique would suffice, but the physique he had in Troy or the Physique Gerard Butler had in 300 would be even better

I prefer the look where you have muscle definition rather than just pure size. At 46 I am not prepared to follow the "See Food Diet" where I have to go through 8-12 week cuts to lean out. So I am trying to do it by eating cleanly 98% of the time at a surplus of 300-400 calories and don't mind if it takes longer than the eat everything in sight option.

So far I am happy enough with 3lb of mostly lean gain in 3 months.

Just my 2 cents worth.


Best Regards,

M

Jimmy Bottlehead

I'd say what most guys would aim for (if they're training mainly to look good, as opposed to other reasons) is the Brad Pitt body. Don't see why really - I prefer carrying a bit more (just a bit, mind!) fat, but also having bigger arms, shoulders, chest and legs, as well as a cracking arse.

I think the missus prefers the Gerard Butler look:

Not ripped per se, but decent bf level while looking relatively muscular.

I still don't agree with the 'eat everything in sight to get huge' approach. Tried it, got too pudgy, didn't look great. Recently, eating smarter is having waaaaay better results. Of course, if your goal is pure size, go for huge calorie surpluses, but I'd stick with smart dieting over that if you want it to be aesthetically pleasing.

Magic Eight Ball

Is this asking too much??
Ivan's pretty much got the best of both worlds IMO.