question on bulking and fat.

hardtrainer · 20-10-2009 01:36AM

To get back to the original question, I think it's safe to assume that if you're eating an excess of calories to support growth you are going to see some extra padding. Thats not to say you should expect to look like a bulking bodybuilder.

All jokes and references to seefood diets aside, you do have to eat an abnormally large amount of food (well I do for my weight). I think most guys really underestimate just how much they need to eat to get bigger. As I said earlier, avoid refined sugars (which means a lot of fast food and ready meals etc that are loaded with sugars in one form or another) and stick to complex carbs and protein and fats.

Again, you can relax the attitude to 'clean foods' a little and just don't go binge on junk for the sake of calories. It's not just a calorie thing, the nutrition is important.

Brian? · 20-10-2009 10:29AM

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

would you also be more inclined to add in his "juice" to your diet?

If you read through the article properly you'll see that its aimed at natural trainees. In fact he clearly states that the only people "seefood diet" bulking works for are drug users:

"Remember, I told you a natural athlete is limited in the amount of nutrients he can use to build muscle by his own body chemistry? Well, this doesn't apply to the drug-using bodybuilder. By artificially enhancing his body chemistry he can bypass his natural muscle growth limit. So in that regard, eating a ton of food will work for the enhanced athlete even though it doesn't for the natural one."

kevpants · 20-10-2009 10:37AM

briankeating wrote: »

If you read through the article properly you'll see that its aimed at natural trainees. In fact he clearly states that the only people "seefood diet" bulking works for are drug users:

"Remember, I told you a natural athlete is limited in the amount of nutrients he can use to build muscle by his own body chemistry? Well, this doesn't apply to the drug-using bodybuilder. By artificially enhancing his body chemistry he can bypass his natural muscle growth limit. So in that regard, eating a ton of food will work for the enhanced athlete even though it doesn't for the natural one."

I'm gonna say this and only this... Thibabobaboobidoo is full of sh1t.

Inspector Coptoor · 20-10-2009 10:55AM

briankeating wrote: »

If you read through the article properly you'll see that its aimed at natural trainees. In fact he clearly states that the only people "seefood diet" bulking works for are drug users:

"Remember, I told you a natural athlete is limited in the amount of nutrients he can use to build muscle by his own body chemistry? Well, this doesn't apply to the drug-using bodybuilder. By artificially enhancing his body chemistry he can bypass his natural muscle growth limit. So in that regard, eating a ton of food will work for the enhanced athlete even though it doesn't for the natural one."

I understand it's aimed at natural trainees. I read the article in full.

But it's really a case of do as i say and not as i do coz he's juiced to the nines, and as kev said, he's full of brown.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 20-10-2009 12:01PM

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

I understand it's aimed at natural trainees. I read the article in full.

But it's really a case of do as i say and not as i do coz he's juiced to the nines

And that matters because?

Brian? · 20-10-2009 12:07PM

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

I understand it's aimed at natural trainees. I read the article in full.

But it's really a case of do as i say and not as i do coz he's juiced to the nines, and as kev said, he's full of brown.

He could well be "juiced to the nines", I just thought it was silly dismissing the entire article because he takes steroids even though its aimed at non steroid users.

I am not even sure he is on the juice though.

Brian? · 20-10-2009 12:09PM

kevpants wrote: »

I'm gonna say this and only this... Thibabobaboobidoo is full of sh1t.

He's not completely full of it, I've found some of his stuff useful.

I have no idea why I'm defending him though, maybe I felt left out as I hadn't posted in this thread or some such.

20-10-2009 12:30PM

I've yet to see how anything Thibabobaboobidoo said in that article is full of sh*t or plain nonsense.

I don't take steroids, I've no interest in taking steroids, doesn't mean I'm going to ignore someone when they give what I think is good advice just because they do.

Remember, I told you a natural athlete is limited in the amount of nutrients he can use to build muscle by his own body chemistry? Well, this doesn't apply to the drug-using bodybuilder. By artificially enhancing his body chemistry he can bypass his natural muscle growth limit. So in that regard, eating a ton of food will work for the enhanced athlete even though it doesn't for the natural one.

That makes perfect sense to me.

Roper · 20-10-2009 12:35PM

In fairness anything can make sense to people when they don't know enough about the subject matter.

Someone could walk up to you now and say "Today's poor weather is caused by the the anti-protons in the cloud formation being electrically stimulated by the ionosphere" and it might sound like it made sense.

People like things that fit their world view, it doesn't make them correct or true.

kevpants · 20-10-2009 12:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I've yet to see how anything Thibabobaboobidoo said in that article is full of sh*t or plain nonsense.

I don't take steroids, I've no interest in taking steroids, doesn't mean I'm going to ignore someone when they give what I think is good advice just because they do.

How did this become about steroids? I never dismissed him on that basis. I dismissed him, as I said, because he is full of sh1t.

I don't have time to do up a case study on the guy but take the first vid that comes up if you Youtube him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzQjJMZMolk

Take that Boris Sheiko! Within one minute the guy has already put his foot in his mouth.

20-10-2009 12:42PM

Roper wrote: »

In fairness anything can make sense to people when they don't know enough about the subject matter.

Someone could walk up to you now and say "Today's poor weather is caused by the the anti-protons in the cloud formation being electrically stimulated by the ionosphere" and it might sound like it made sense.

People like things that fit their world view, it doesn't make them correct or true.

Fair enough Mr 15% bodyfat and proud. Why don't you explain what the fu*k you're talking about then ?

I'll admit that I don't know enough about the subject and how it fits into my "world view" (Seth Godin would be proud) when you explain to me how that paragraph posted is nonsense.

If I'm missing the point, I'll admit it. Just educate me on how that paragraph posted is wrong and I'll back down.

So once again, as BrianKeating posted originally, tell me how this is wrong.

Remember, I told you a natural athlete is limited in the amount of nutrients he can use to build muscle by his own body chemistry? Well, this doesn't apply to the drug-using bodybuilder. By artificially enhancing his body chemistry he can bypass his natural muscle growth limit. So in that regard, eating a ton of food will work for the enhanced athlete even though it doesn't for the natural one.

Roper · 20-10-2009 01:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair enough Mr 15% bodyfat and proud. Why don't you explain what the fu*k you're talking about then ?

Yeah it's all about the bodyfat. That's about the 4th time you've referred to my bodyfat in posts, and I still fail to see the relevance other than to attempt to besmirch my already besmirched name even further.

I'll admit that I don't know enough about the subject and how it fits into my "world view" (Seth Godin would be proud) when you explain to me how that paragraph posted is nonsense.

It's nonsense because countless people make massive gains in strength while eating large amounts of food and lifting correspondingly while not taking steroids. I also have no idea who Seth Godin is, but if he's copyrighted the term World View then I'll pay him his fiver.

So what you've just said there is "I don't know enough" and yet you still make an aggressive post. Are you this aggressive in real life I wonder? Or does the anonymity of the internet give you a chance to vent?

If I'm missing the point, I'll admit it. Just educate me on how that paragraph posted is wrong and I'll back down.

You are missing the point, you're also a hyper-aggressive little man

20-10-2009 01:31PM

No Roper, you're just incredibly patronizing. I'd react the exact same way offline being completely honest and I've no doubt you'd behave the same way offline so don't think otherwise about me because that's once again, patronizing behaviour. Same with the "hyper aggressive little man" stuff. Patronizing, unneccessary, the list goes on and on.

I'm not saying people can NOT make massive strength gains by eating loads and neither is Thibabobaboobidoo in that paragraph. What he is saying is that people who are drug free have limitations due to their natural body chemistry and that people who take enhancing drugs can change their natural makeup to allow them to recover quicker, train harder, get more use out of eating more etc etc than someone who does not.

So I think you are the one who is missing the point. And calling me uneducated doesn't make you look good.

Roper · 20-10-2009 01:36PM

When you talk rubbish about something you know nothing about, then you can expect to be patronized. I would expect the same thing if tried fight my corner about my theory of how the universe is an orange in a room full of physicists.

That is all.

Inspector Coptoor · 20-10-2009 01:39PM

briankeating wrote: »

He's not completely full of it, I've found some of his stuff useful.

I have no idea why I'm defending him though, maybe I felt left out as I hadn't posted in this thread or some such.

he is on juice.

therefore, his opinion on what "a natural athlete" can and cannot do is bull*hit as he is NOT a natural athlete and that's why the article is flawed.

BossArky · 20-10-2009 01:40PM

Moderation Notice:

Attack the post, not the poster.

itsallaboutheL · 20-10-2009 01:41PM

itsallaboutheL · 20-10-2009 01:45PM

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

he is on juice.

therefore, his opinion on what "a natural athlete" can and cannot do is bull*hit as he is NOT a natural athlete and that's why the article is flawed.

There is no logic whatsoever in that post!!

20-10-2009 01:47PM

Roper wrote: »

When you talk rubbish about something you know nothing about, then you can expect to be patronized. I would expect the same thing if tried fight my corner about my theory of how the universe is an orange in a room full of physicists.

That is all.

Ok so what qualifications have you got to talk about health and fitness then ? We may as well close this whole board down then because few of us here are experts in this field and kick out people that don't know as much as others.

Please explain where and how I was talking rubbish. I'm not the author of the article. I just agreed with it. I'm pretty sure there are thousands of fitness experts out there more qualified than you and I in the field who agree with it also so to narrow mindedly tell me I am talking rubbish and know nothing about said subject is inappropriate behaviour.

I could open a gym tomorrow Roper

and train my friends and their friends friends etc etc etc etc, does that mean I know what I'm talking about all the time ? Not a chance, I hope you're humble enough to realise that if you want to evolve in your field.

cmyk · 20-10-2009 01:48PM

As someone who is also trying to add a few kg's on a pretty clean diet, no one here has put forward arguments against the article posted.

I'm not a powerlifter, and don't intend to be, I want a healthy allround balanced lifestyle, with a good degree of fitness/lifts etc. From reading that article it makes sense to me, it doesn't seem to stray too far from other articles/blogs I have read etc. In fact the table of kcals/suggestions doesn't stray too far from the stickies in this forum.

Roper · 20-10-2009 01:49PM

Yeah what would I know.

d'Oracle · 20-10-2009 01:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I could open a gym tomorrow Roper and train my friends and their friends friends etc etc etc etc, does that mean I know what I'm talking about all the time ? Not a chance, I hope you're humble enough to realise that if you want to evolve in your field.

This has been done before.
Roper is a smartass, I'm sure he would be the first one to admit it.
I don't think he is gonna change his outlook, no matter how many people loose the rag at him and make a show of themselves on boards.ie. (from experience)

Best to ignore him, if you don't like it.

20-10-2009 01:54PM

Roper wrote: »

Yeah what would I know.

Well I'm just curious. Ireland is a pretty small country, you kind of know who the top guys are in any field quite easily. Maybe you're real name is not Barry Oglesby and you're really a world re-nowned expert who is undisputedly the absolute best in his field.

I don't think so. So don't try put me down over it. If it's any consolation, I'm not a world re-nowned expert either so now we have something in common.

BossArky · 20-10-2009 02:01PM

Profile warning for TheEntrepreneur. I have asked you to stop attacking the individual.

Next one is a ban.

corkcomp · 20-10-2009 02:03PM

<edit> not needed, at all </edit>

kevpants · 20-10-2009 02:41PM

cmyk wrote: »

As someone who is also trying to add a few kg's on a pretty clean diet, no one here has put forward arguments against the article posted.

I'm not a powerlifter, and don't intend to be, I want a healthy allround balanced lifestyle, with a good degree of fitness/lifts etc. From reading that article it makes sense to me, it doesn't seem to stray too far from other articles/blogs I have read etc. In fact the table of kcals/suggestions doesn't stray too far from the stickies in this forum.

Sweet mother of jesus if one more person uses the "Not everyone wants to be a powerlifter line" I'm gonna frikkin kill someone.

It's always thrown out there as a reason to include boxercise and broccoli soup in a strength program.

I'll put forward arguments against that article for everyone if that's what you want.

For starters it's based around the science that wouldn't look out of place in a L'Oreal add with little balls landing on hairs and making them all lovely and nice. The whole thing is predicated on this limit he keeps referring to. The limit at which no matter how much more you eat you can't gain more muscle, how in the hell does he make the leap that he knows what this limit is? He pretty much implies he has it all worked out that he knows the exact amount of protein/carbs/fat AND the right ratios to result in maximum muscle gain and minimum fat gain.

WOW!! This doesn't sound like a sham at all!! I've definitely never heard this claimed before. ESPECIALLY not on the internet, the bastion of truth that it is.

He also describes losing excess fat after a period of gaining size as "starving". Right, cos all I remember doing was taking a walk before breakfast.

And don't get me started on the pictures. Unflattering poses for the fatties and fake tan for the clients. Oh and his bird looks like her name used to be Dave.

And his building analogy falls on its ass too. If you had all that money why would you give the builders a 100% pay rise when you could just hire twice as many builders? House would get built pretty feckin fast then!

I'd send my credit card details to the recently dethroned King of Umbootwahleh before I'd buy into his idea.

Inspector Coptoor · 20-10-2009 03:12PM

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

There is no logic whatsoever in that post!!

it's like a greyhound telling a bulldog how to run fast.
it's not comparable.

I fail to see how there is no logic in the post

itsallaboutheL · 20-10-2009 03:17PM

Liam Henners257 wrote: »

it's like a greyhound telling a bulldog how to run fast.
it's not comparable.

I fail to see how there is no logic in the post

No it's like a human dog trainer training a greyhound how to run fast..

d'Oracle · 20-10-2009 03:21PM

No its like a Greyhound on drugs telling a greyhound how to run fast.

cmyk · 20-10-2009 03:27PM

kevpants wrote: »

Sweet mother of jesus if one more person uses the "Not everyone wants to be a powerlifter line" I'm gonna frikkin kill someone. It's always thrown out there as a reason to include boxercise and broccoli soup in a strength program.

Well if you're going to make a sweeping statement like that then at the other end of the scale is the person on a bulk who makes the case for not ever passing the doors of a mcdonalds.

kevpants wrote: »

I'll put forward arguments against that article for everyone if that's what you want.

Yes, that is all anyone was asking for.

kevpants wrote: »

The whole thing is predicated on this limit he keeps referring to. The limit at which no matter how much more you eat you can't gain more muscle, how in the hell does he make the leap that he knows what this limit is? He pretty much implies he has it all worked out that he knows the exact amount of protein/carbs/fat AND the right ratios to result in maximum muscle gain and minimum fat gain.

Scientifically (albeit a simplification) there has to be a cut-off point, if the body only has the ability to develop between 0.25 and .5lbs of muscle per week, (I've read this elsewhere and taking this as relatively accurate) then it stands to reason anything over this is going to be wasted? This is also posted in the stickies section with regard to adding circa 20%kcals to your daily calorific needs and 20%less for weight loss etc. along with percentage breakdowns to achieve the same?

question on bulking and fat.

Comments