MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Extreme Bulking for Advanced Athletes
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

Tomislav

New York, USA

Extreme Bulking for Advanced Athletes

This technique is for the advanced athlete who's trained for many years and has built a lot of muscle but is no longer progressing at a satisfactory rate or whose progress is stalled.

How it works:

The athlete gets fat and then stays at that weight for a period of three years during which time they undergo a gradual composition change with much of the fat converting to muscle. The athlete trains heavy with the basics and should realize significant increases in their lifts during this time.

Mechanisms enhancing Hypertrophy:

1. Stretch hyperplasia; over an extended period of time the extra fat marbling the muscle tissue will cause additional growth from stretching.

2. Carrying an extra 30-40 lbs around all the time will build additional muscle from all types of natural movement and joint articulation present in everyday activities.

3. Continuous Leptin release - because the fat cells are maintained for years during the slow composition change, T levels are elevated.

4. Estrogen release is minimized - because fat cells are so slowly metabolized over the three year period, estrace does not flood the system and feminize the athlete like it would were the athlete to rapidly drop all that fat in 3 months; ignoring this basic biological fact is IMO the biggest reason fast bulking does not work for advanced athletes; converting a significant portion of the weight you've gained into muscle takes time, particularly so for an athlete already experiencing diminishing returns.

Any advanced athlete not in it for the long haul is completely wasting their time and won't have a transformation pic to show for it.
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

Tomislav wrote:
Extreme Bulking for Advanced Athletes

This technique is for the advanced athlete who's trained for many years and has built a lot of muscle but is no longer progressing at a satisfactory rate or whose progress is stalled.

How it works:

The athlete gets fat and then stays at that weight for a period of three years during which time they undergo a gradual composition change with much of the fat converting to muscle. The athlete trains heavy with the basics and should realize significant increases in their lifts during this time.

Mechanisms enhancing Hypertrophy:

1. Stretch hyperplasia; over an extended period of time the extra fat marbling the muscle tissue will cause additional growth from stretching.

2. Carrying an extra 30-40 lbs around all the time will build additional muscle from all types of natural movement and joint articulation present in everyday activities.

3. Continuous Leptin release - because the fat cells are maintained for years during the slow composition change, T levels are elevated.

4. Estrogen release is minimized - because fat cells are so slowly metabolized over the three year period, estrace does not flood the system and feminize the athlete like it would were the athlete to rapidly drop all that fat in 3 months; ignoring this basic biological fact is IMO the biggest reason fast bulking does not work for advanced athletes; converting a significant portion of the weight you've gained into muscle takes time, particularly so for an athlete already experiencing diminishing returns.

Any advanced athlete not in it for the long haul is completely wasting their time and won't have a transformation pic to show for it.


BUT...you are spending most of your life looking like a fat slob..

No thanks, there are MUCH better ways to accomplish muscle/strength growth, than becoming a fat ass.

Sure we need additional calories to build, but a well managed diet will allow for muscle/strength gain and a small amount of fat gain that will not take long to lose.

Common sense tells us this.
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

I do not agree that you can gain 30-40lbs and recomp for the same reasons you can't stay at a relatively low BF%/low eight and continue to recomp, unless of course you are using some special supplements. The body adapts and needs new stimuli to ontinue progressing. Of course, if you have reached your genetic limit......uh, yeah. Can't say I have ever met anybody that has reached their genetic limit.

I believe if an advanced athlete wants to get to the next level, he/she is going to have to find a way to gain some good solid weight. It will probably be a mixture of muscle, fat, and fluids. I should preface this with, I definitely believe in putting a limit on the highest you'll allow your bodyfat% to go. For example, right now I have decided to see if I can get to a higher level. I will absolutely not allow myself to get above 15%BF. Like the others, I see no value in health or appearance to get sloppy. I started this experiment January 1st at 190lbs. I am presently at 198lbs. I am going to continue until August. At this time, I will take 4-8 weeks to lose any fat or extra-cellular fluids I may have attained, then I will re-assess and continue from there. I believe this works better, because I know from past competition days, I would rebound and gain muscle and strength rapidly due to the change in the hormonal environment (insulin sensitivity, IGF, GH, receptor sites, etc.). I just can't say that I have ever seen anyone stay the same weight and look that much different without gaining or losing weight. I'm not saying it is totally impossible, just not optimal.
Open User Options Menu

tompuderbaugh

Your whole premise is incorrect....

Fat cells and muscle cells are NOT the same thing, both physically and chemically. And it is equally NOT possible to "convert" fat cells to muscle cells like your posting promises....It just can't be done.

Bottom line: Getting fat makes you...fat. You can (perhaps) lose the extra weight over time, but all of the effort of this "roundtrip" gets you nothing.

Arthur Jones would be laughing his head off with this one!
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

fat converting to muscle

Is that like converting lead into gold? Sorry, but fat cells and muscles cells each have their own identity and one does not turn into the other.

over an extended period of time the extra fat marbling the muscle tissue will cause additional growth from stretching.

This must be like how those really obese people stretch out, then need to have the loose tissue (skin) surgically removed. However, in someone getting fat (not obese), that bit of stretching does not stretch or cause muscle cells to increase in size or number. If it does, please provide scientific proof.

Carrying an extra 30-40 lbs around all the time will build additional muscle from all types of natural movement and joint articulation present in everyday activities.

Come on, now. The weight gain is slow enough and then stagnates so that the body adapts to that weight increase. Really, how much muscle are you going to put on from lugging around some extra fat. I know people who go on week-long hikes with backbacks that weigh that much and they don't come back more muscular... and that's 30+ pounds of INSTANT stimulation over the course of a week (a blitz of sorts). And the only thing getting a pounding every day from the fat are not the muscles (limited to the muscles of the legs, by the way), but more so the joints from the excess body weight. I have enough over-weight, older clients requiring knee and hip surgery, thank you very much.

Continuous Leptin release - because the fat cells are maintained for years during the slow composition change, T levels are elevated.

That's why the best built people are the fattest, lol. This was never the case years ago, but in the past 15 or so years pro bodybuilders can be quite fat in the off-season. Let's see... less drug use, but same eating plan. It's like a pro football player who eats and trains big, then stops training upon retirement. He got fat for a reason. Same with pro bodybuilders who don't do as much, with far less drugs in their systems, and who continue to eat the same. This does not mean the average person should do this. Sorry to get off track... in regard to elevated T levels... just how elevated are they to induce muscular growth over and beyond what can be achieved without it. Think of it this way... take one 5mg DBall once a week... something that will increase anabolic levels in the body more so than adding fat, but do you think that one tab, once a week is going to do anything? There is a difference between increasing hormonal levels in the body and increasing them so much that they hit a 'tipping point' and actually cause an effect. Similar to eating sweets now and then... they increase blood sugar levels, but in high enough doses often enough, you get suffer from diabetes... but what it takes to achieve that change in the body is significant enough... and I doubt adding some fat to the body is enough to reach the tipping point of anabolism. I would need proof of that.

Estrogen release is minimized - because fat cells are so slowly metabolized over the three year period, estrace does not flood the system and feminize the athlete...

No one has actually proved this in practice... and so I'm not sure. But what I do know is that you will look more feminine with that chunky butt and droopy pecs.

Any advanced athlete not in it for the long haul is completely wasting their time and won't have a transformation pic to show for it.


And there's the fail-safe, since I'm not sure who is willing to look like crap for three years, get lean, then repeat the process to show the differences from one photo to the next. Nor could that person or anyone prove that going through such a process actually works better than avoiding it all together. You would need twins or triplets for a controlled study, and that's not going to happen any time soon.

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Tomislav wrote:
Extreme Bulking for Advanced Athletes

This technique is for the advanced athlete who's trained for many years and has built a lot of muscle but is no longer progressing at a satisfactory rate or whose progress is stalled.

How it works:

The athlete gets fat and then stays at that weight for a period of three years during which time they undergo a gradual composition change with much of the fat converting to muscle. The athlete trains heavy with the basics and should realize significant increases in their lifts during this time.

Mechanisms enhancing Hypertrophy:

1. Stretch hyperplasia; over an extended period of time the extra fat marbling the muscle tissue will cause additional growth from stretching.

2. Carrying an extra 30-40 lbs around all the time will build additional muscle from all types of natural movement and joint articulation present in everyday activities.

3. Continuous Leptin release - because the fat cells are maintained for years during the slow composition change, T levels are elevated.

4. Estrogen release is minimized - because fat cells are so slowly metabolized over the three year period, estrace does not flood the system and feminize the athlete like it would were the athlete to rapidly drop all that fat in 3 months; ignoring this basic biological fact is IMO the biggest reason fast bulking does not work for advanced athletes; converting a significant portion of the weight you've gained into muscle takes time, particularly so for an athlete already experiencing diminishing returns.

Any advanced athlete not in it for the long haul is completely wasting their time and won't have a transformation pic to show for it.


"Bulking up, slimming down" is so 70's. Unhealthy and unnecessary. Excessive calories and protein won't build one more ounce of muscle beyond physiological need. Just makes you fat, physiologically older and unhealthy. Let's put thiss one to rest once and for all shall we?
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

First off let me come clean...I've done it. I went through my lift big/s**t big phase. I rose from the mid 150's to the high 180's and stayed there for a few years.

Encouraging your somatic characteristics to be endomorphic won't contribute to muscle growth - encouraging them to be a) what they were in your early twenties and to b) mimic mesomorphia...will.

As I mentioned in the xforce thread we should look at dense calorie sources and sugar as supplements. Combined with smart, strategic and eclectic training you will see progress past the intermediate phase.

With average genetics progress will be slow but forward none the less. More importantly this slow forward progress is exactly what you need to stave off the effects of aging.

Fast progress for the experienced lifter just means you were doing something very wrong. The body does grow and change in quick little bursts BUT the actual scale weight in muscle is small past the novice stage.

Be patient, smart, objective and don't chase pipe dreams, it ruins your most valuable asset...real heart felt enthusiasm.

Regards,
Andrew

Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

logicbdj wrote:
fat converting to muscle

Is that like converting lead into gold? Sorry, but fat cells and muscles cells each have their own identity and one does not turn into the other.

... said the 170 lb athlete so as to ensure that they would never become a 200 lb athlete.

You can turn fat into muscle; it's that important

- guess who


over an extended period of time the extra fat marbling the muscle tissue will cause additional growth from stretching.

This must be like how those really obese people stretch out, then need to have the loose tissue (skin) surgically removed. However, in someone getting fat (not obese), that bit of stretching does not stretch or cause muscle cells to increase in size or number. If it does, please provide scientific proof.

There's plenty of scientific proof for stretch hyperplasia but much of it isn't recognized here; it's the same principle as you see with synthol only it's natural.
Do you somehow imagine you can marble and NOT have this happen? You just pointed out the need for loose skin to be removed, well prove that only skin and cartilage are subject to stretch hyperplasia. While you're explaining, cite an alternate reason for the growth of Ellington's ribcage and the tribal lip stretching that seems to clearly cause hyperplasia of the orbicularis oris.

Carrying an extra 30-40 lbs around all the time will build additional muscle from all types of natural movement and joint articulation present in everyday activities.

Come on, now. The weight gain is slow enough and then stagnates so that the body adapts to that weight increase. Really, how much muscle are you going to put on from lugging around some extra fat. I know people who go on week-long hikes with backbacks that weigh that much and they don't come back more muscular... and that's 30+ pounds of INSTANT stimulation over the course of a week (a blitz of sorts). And the only thing getting a pounding every day from the fat are not the muscles (limited to the muscles of the legs, by the way), but more so the joints from the excess body weight. I have enough over-weight, older clients requiring knee and hip surgery, thank you very much.

Everyday activities is the key here; you are comparing this to hiking which is strenuous activity associated with catabolism via overuse syndrome (hiking is often done to exhaustion).

Continuous Leptin release - because the fat cells are maintained for years during the slow composition change, T levels are elevated.

That's why the best built people are the fattest, lol. This was never the case years ago, but in the past 15 or so years pro bodybuilders can be quite fat in the off-season. Let's see... less drug use, but same eating plan. It's like a pro football player who eats and trains big, then stops training upon retirement. He got fat for a reason. Same with pro bodybuilders who don't do as much, with far less drugs in their systems, and who continue to eat the same. This does not mean the average person should do this. Sorry to get off track... in regard to elevated T levels... just how elevated are they to induce muscular growth over and beyond what can be achieved without it. Think of it this way... take one 5mg DBall once a week... something that will increase anabolic levels in the body more so than adding fat, but do you think that one tab, once a week is going to do anything? There is a difference between increasing hormonal levels in the body and increasing them so much that they hit a 'tipping point' and actually cause an effect. Similar to eating sweets now and then... they increase blood sugar levels, but in high enough doses often enough, you get suffer from diabetes... but what it takes to achieve that change in the body is significant enough... and I doubt adding some fat to the body is enough to reach the tipping point of anabolism. I would need proof of that.

OK interesting comparison, let's take a closer look:

5 mg dbol = 15=25 mg T, but it's metabolized fairly rapidly. Leptin bypasses the HPTA and directly increases T; an athlete already producing 10 mg T/day is going to easily realize > 25 mg more T a week from the leptin released by a good layer of fat.

Conclusion - the dbol tab loses; now if the athlete were to take it 3x/week perhaps it could beat the leptin, even then it's a question of how much leptin producing fat the athlete is willing to maintain; Louis Cryr could bitch slap you.


Estrogen release is minimized - because fat cells are so slowly metabolized over the three year period, estrace does not flood the system and feminize the athlete...

No one has actually proved this in practice... and so I'm not sure. But what I do know is that you will look more feminine with that chunky butt and droopy pecs.

This is silly; being fat is not going to make you look feminine unless you decide to flood your system with estrace by rapidly metabolizing the fat. You can also grow a goatee to hide the double chin or do face work (search for my thread so you know) to build more muscle in your face.

Any advanced athlete not in it for the long haul is completely wasting their time and won't have a transformation pic to show for it.

And there's the fail-safe, since I'm not sure who is willing to look like crap for three years, get lean, then repeat the process to show the differences from one photo to the next. Nor could that person or anyone prove that going through such a process actually works better than avoiding it all together. You would need twins or triplets for a controlled study, and that's not going to happen any time soon.


I've already offered photographic proof; you countered with an alternate hypothesis but no proof of your own. This leaves us with two competing interpretations of the images presented:

1. I used photoshop to stretch out my tri.
2. Staying fat for years caused stretch hyperplasia.

I've posed my argument, where's yours?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Tom, can we get a pic of you so we can see what you mean by the bulk up?
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

I've keep my body fat amount/percentage very consistent over the years (I'm a little over 200 pounds with abs showing)... still no proof that adding a bunch of fat will take a 170 pound person and turn him him into 200 pounds with the same conditioning (after the fat loss). And so, get to 230-240 pounds in order to eventually weigh 200 (if the person is 170)?

Tom... I don't have to prove or quote anything... you're the one making the claims that this actually helps people make muscle. I don't see how marbling of fat increase the number or size of muscle cells. You are confusing the effects of the myotendinous junction and stretch under heavy tension and high intensity (and it's effects on hypertrophy) with minor pressure of fat marbling through muscles cells not even near the myotendinous junction. How on earth did you make that connection? Show me that proof, of how one is connected to another.

Do you somehow imagine you can marble and NOT have this happen? You just pointed out the need for loose skin to be removed...

Yes, due to all the FAT increase, not muscle increase.

cite an alternate reason for the growth of Ellington's ribcage and the tribal lip stretching that seems to clearly cause hyperplasia of the orbicularis oris.

In regard to the rib cage, bones don't harden or fuse until a person is in his or her late teens to early 20s, and that's when myself and many others did so-called rib-expansion exercises. Just try and get someone aged 35, for example, to do that, and nothing happens. The deep expansion exercises has an effect on the cartilage and bones... but notice the chest muscles don't get bigger, lol? In regard to the loose, hanging lips, the tissue not only is different, but the extremes in the constant stretching, under greater conditions, is hardly the same. You are trying to make a connection that cannot exist. Again, you are hypothesizing and suggesting it is fact.

Everyday activities is the key here; you are comparing this to hiking which is strenuous activity associated with catabolism via overuse syndrome (hiking is often done to exhaustion).

Yup... everyday activity... endurance based... constant... light... non anaerobic. I guess I now need to do the above type activities to build muscle, right? Because that is where your logic is headed. If strenous and intense hiking don't build extra muscle on their legs, why would everyday activities that the body can cope with no problem do so?



You like the leptin argument... but there still is no proof that getting fat creates anabolism in the body, and to the point that it makes a difference in muscle gain in a serious athlete (let alone someone lazy). And Louis Cyr? LOL. He was one in a million, like Paul Anderson. Stop using genetic freaks (fat or thin) to support an argument. I think Bruce Lee could have bitch slapped Cyr, at 1/3 his size and cut. So what? And there are plenty of strong, smaller people... and plenty of very muscular and not so strong people... and plenty of muscular people who did not get fat (I guess they should have, right? to be super muscular). It's all moot. Hypothesizing is one thing, but claiming this is fact is bordering snake oil.

This is silly; being fat is not going to make you look feminine... .

Not true... you look pregnant in the last photo you posted.

Any advanced athlete not in it for the long haul is completely wasting their time and won't have a transformation pic to show for it. .

Got out of it again... don't have to show proof, although you're only asking for 3 years at a time, whereas a 'serious' athlete would train for decades.

I've already offered photographic proof

You did? Please, repost the before and after photos that show fat to cut, then fat to cut, then fat to cut... so that we can see you better developed in each 'cut' photo.

I've posed my argument, where's yours?


I suggest you re-read everything, including what's in this post. Your argument has no proof... you are linking satellite cell stimulation around the myotendinous junction (under high strain and stretch) with marbling of friggin' fat into the muscle, lol... you cannot show these multiple before and after photos to demo how much muscle you are gaining each time you go through your fat phase. What more is there to argue? Good luck in looking like crap and hoping what you're doing does not have an effect on long-term health... and stay away from the beach... uuggghhh!
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

logicbdj wrote:
I've keep my body fat amount/percentage very consistent over the years (I'm a little over 200 pounds with abs showing)... still no proof that adding a bunch of fat will take a 170 pound person and turn him him into 200 pounds with the same conditioning (after the fat loss). And so, get to 230-240 pounds in order to eventually weigh 200 (if the person is 170)?

Brian,
you and some other posters on this thread are not reading carefully; I am NOT talking about the 170 lb athlete going to 240 lbs in order to be muscular at 200. I am saying have the 170 lb athlete go up to 200 lbs and stay there for three years during which time there is a composition change and much of the fat becomes muscle. After 3 years of heavy training there is no way that same 200 lb athlete is not going to undergo a composition change - what you can argue is to what degree. I'll say again though, this point is key to understanding. You like to drop 40 lbs of fat in 3 months and the basic biology is that you flood your system with estrace and downregulate T considerably by reducing like that.


Tom... I don't have to prove or quote anything...
you're the one making the claims that this actually helps people make muscle.
I don't see how marbling of fat increase the number or size of muscle cells.

You need to prove the alternate hypothesis that I photoshopped the fat into muscle. Gather your photoshopping prowess and let's see some proof.

So far you've backed away from being technologically unable to interface the 64-bit computer in the bat cave with your camera in favour of admitting you simply are eccentric and wish to live in the bat cave without connecting your camera.

You are confusing the effects of the myotendinous junction and stretch under heavy tension and high intensity (and it's effects on hypertrophy) with minor pressure of fat marbling through muscles cells not even near the myotendinous junction. How on earth did you make that connection? Show me that proof, of how one is connected to another.

Do you somehow imagine you can marble and NOT have this happen? You just pointed out the need for loose skin to be removed...

Yes, due to all the FAT increase, not muscle increase.

*You missed the point; you just explained that the protein structures in the skin had underwent hyperplasia due to the fat providing a constant stretch to that structure. Now follow through ;)

cite an alternate reason for the growth of Ellington's ribcage and the tribal lip stretching that seems to clearly cause hyperplasia of the orbicularis oris.

In regard to the rib cage, bones don't harden or fuse until a person is in his or her late teens to early 20s, and that's when myself and many others did so-called rib-expansion exercises. Just try and get someone aged 35, for example, to do that, and nothing happens. The deep expansion exercises has an effect on the cartilage and bones... but notice the chest muscles don't get bigger, lol? In regard to the loose, hanging lips, the tissue not only is different, but the extremes in the constant stretching, under greater conditions, is hardly the same. You are trying to make a connection that cannot exist. Again, you are hypothesizing and suggesting it is fact.

Go back here*

Everyday activities is the key here; you are comparing this to hiking which is strenuous activity associated with catabolism via overuse syndrome (hiking is often done to exhaustion).

Yup... everyday activity... endurance based... constant... light... non anaerobic. I guess I now need to do the above type activities to build muscle, right? Because that is where your logic is headed. If strenous and intense hiking don't build extra muscle on their legs, why would everyday activities that the body can cope with no problem do so?

That is oxymoronic; everyday activities of daily living do not include an all day endurance race or hike; peoples muscles develop to handle the needs of every day activities but non stop all day strenuous endurance activities break down muscle tissue instead of building it up. Look around you; those engaging in marathoning and such are wasting away while fat people have fantastic calf development from just a little bit of walking with a lot of resistance.

You like the leptin argument...
but there still is no proof that getting fat creates anabolism in the body, and to the point that it makes a difference in muscle gain in a serious athlete (let alone someone lazy).

Yes it's quite logical; to correct the 'imbalance' of too much fat the fat sends out a signal to build more muscle; that signal is leptin.

And Louis Cyr? LOL. He was one in a million, like Paul Anderson. Stop using genetic freaks (fat or thin) to support an argument.

Stop claiming this method only worked for old school athletes because they were genetic; it's irrational to suggest that only Anderson and Cyr could build large muscles from heavy lifts and a lot of food.

And it seems silly to ridicule with photoshop claims you can't back up; I like to train and eat like the old school athletes did to build a lot of muscle naturally - this isn't rocket science.
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

You don't seem to be reading too carefully yourself. Fat cannot become muscle... two different types of cells. Please prove that!

I dropped a lot of fat with no effort... I was already muscular and advanced in my training... I simply returned to a normal eating pattern and stopped force feeding myself. I then let nature take its course without trying to diet.

I don't need to prove anything... the photo you use that's all blue does not match the other one you posted in black and white. Whatever. And I have not backed out of anything... my photos are public record, from age 15 to age 43, when I sold the IART. Those photos are throughout the IART books, as well as being on the Internet (speak to Mike Lipowski, who now owns the materials). I was the very last person to hide behind anything, whereas you are yet to show the consecutive photos of bulk to lean... from bulk to lean, etc., to prove YOUR hypothesis.

You missed the point; you just explained that the protein structures in the skin had underwent hyperplasia due to the fat providing a constant stretch to that structure. Now follow through

Apparently you missed it...SKIN not muscle cells. The skin has to accommodate a larger body, but where is the proof that muscles would get larger just because fat is increasing?


[quote}That is oxymoronic; everyday activities of daily living do not include an all day endurance race or hike; peoples muscles develop to handle the needs of every day activities but non stop all day strenuous endurance activities break down muscle tissue instead of building it up. Look around you; those engaging in marathoning and such are wasting away while fat people have fantastic calf development from just a little bit of walking with a lot of resistance.

What is moronic is not understanding adaptation to endurance-based activity nor overuse atrophy.

Yes it's quite logical; to correct the 'imbalance' of too much fat the fat sends out a signal to build more muscle; that signal is leptin.

To what extent... 10 pounds of muscle gain? I doubt that. But suppose 5 pounds of muscle... an unhealthy 30 pounds gain of fat and looking terrible for 3 years to achieve another 5 pounds of muscle, 70% of which is water?

Stop claiming this method only worked for old school athletes because they were genetic; it's irrational to suggest that only Anderson and Cyr could build large muscles from heavy lifts and a lot of food.

While ignoring those who built lots of strength and muscle without being obese!

I like to train and eat like the old school athletes did to build a lot of muscle naturally - this isn't rocket science.

And I did the same without doing so. And if you investigate my photos over the years, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that my physique surpassed yours. But then again, you can chalk it up to genetics this time.

Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

logicbdj wrote:
You don't seem to be reading too carefully yourself. Fat cannot become muscle... two different types of cells. Please prove that!



You can turn fat into muscle; it's that important
- Ellington Darden

The fat guys will build big arms.
- Bob Hoffman


I dropped a lot of fat with no effort... I was already muscular and advanced in my training... I simply returned to a normal eating pattern and stopped force feeding myself. I then let nature take its course without trying to diet.

Perhaps you were eating lots of extra protein instead of just extra food; doesn't feel like force feeding if you use food and extra fat content (fat tastes good). And dropping a lot of fat quickly encourages muscle loss as well because it floods the system with estrace, don't you understand?

I don't need to prove anything... the photo you use that's all blue does not match the other one you posted in black and white.

Huh? That's news to me, I was pretty sure they were the same photo.

Whatever. And I have not backed out of anything... my photos are public record, from age 15 to age 43, when I sold the IART. Those photos are throughout the IART books, as well as being on the Internet (speak to Mike Lipowski, who now owns the materials). I was the very last person to hide behind anything, whereas you are yet to show the consecutive photos of bulk to lean... from bulk to lean, etc., to prove YOUR hypothesis.

You missed the point; you just explained that the protein structures in the skin had underwent hyperplasia due to the fat providing a constant stretch to that structure. Now follow through

Apparently you missed it...SKIN not muscle cells. The skin has to accommodate a larger body, but where is the proof that muscles would get larger just because fat is increasing?


[quote}That is oxymoronic; everyday activities of daily living do not include an all day endurance race or hike; peoples muscles develop to handle the needs of every day activities but non stop all day strenuous endurance activities break down muscle tissue instead of building it up. Look around you; those engaging in marathoning and such are wasting away while fat people have fantastic calf development from just a little bit of walking with a lot of resistance.

What is moronic is not understanding adaptation to endurance-based activity nor overuse atrophy.

Yes it's quite logical; to correct the 'imbalance' of too much fat the fat sends out a signal to build more muscle; that signal is leptin.

To what extent... 10 pounds of muscle gain? I doubt that. But suppose 5 pounds of muscle... an unhealthy 30 pounds gain of fat and looking terrible for 3 years to achieve another 5 pounds of muscle, 70% of which is water?

Stop claiming this method only worked for old school athletes because they were genetic; it's irrational to suggest that only Anderson and Cyr could build large muscles from heavy lifts and a lot of food.

While ignoring those who built lots of strength and muscle without being obese!

I like to train and eat like the old school athletes did to build a lot of muscle naturally - this isn't rocket science.

And I did the same without doing so. And if you investigate my photos over the years, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that my physique surpassed yours. But then again, you can chalk it up to genetics this time.


How would that matter? Results are relative and individual; yours, Anderson's and mine. But you're clearly in awe of my blue pic so why not see what kind of cool muscle you can dream up for yourself with your 64-bit photoshop - seems to me you've got more raw photoshopping horsepower than any athlete on the forum ;)
Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Ellington likely was suggesting that a fat person can exercise and lose the fat and gain muscle (and even use the energy from fat to fuel the body in muscle development). But the chemical composition of fat cells are completely different than the chemical composition of muscle cells. Please explain, in simple or complex terms if you like, how the chemical components of fat turn into the chemical components of muscle. And stop quoting people as though that is all that needs to be said on the matter.

Perhaps you were eating lots of extra protein instead of just extra food; doesn't feel like force feeding if you use food and extra fat content (fat tastes good). And dropping a lot of fat quickly encourages muscle loss as well because it floods the system with estrace, don't you understand?

Understand this... one, do not ASSume how I ate or what the foods consisted of... I did not eat extra protein, or go out of my way doing so, for example. And I did not drop it fast as I simply stopped gorging to put on the extra weight... the body drops fat at its own level of convenience, particularly when consuming normal levels of calories relative to activity and muscle mass levels.

{quote] You missed the point; you just explained that the protein structures in the skin had underwent hyperplasia due to the fat providing a constant stretch to that structure. Now follow through

Contractile proteins of muscles vs. proteins in the skin. Oh, yes, same thing, right? And skin cells must be the same as heart cells or liver cells... after all, they're all organs.


Yes it's quite logical; to correct the 'imbalance' of too much fat the fat sends out a signal to build more muscle; that signal is leptin.

Constantly saying it doesn't make it an effective path for a resistance trainee, nor for every person (if at all possible or if at all effective). You have yet to prove it through practice.

Results are relative and individual; yours, Anderson's and mine. But you're clearly in awe of my blue pic so why not see what kind of cool muscle you can dream up for yourself with your 64-bit photoshop - seems to me you've got more raw photoshopping horsepower than any athlete on the forum ;)


Yes, results are relative, and so are the methods people need to use to make the best gains. You're suggesting everyone get as fat as you. Disgusting! No, I'm not in awe of your photo, only that it looks odd and over-shadowed, unlike the original it came from, which looks mediocre in development at best... and the fat gut one is just downright depressing. I don't have Photoshop... sorry. I'm done with this stupid topic. Forward march, young man, get as fat as you can and put on maximum muscle.

Open User Options Menu

Brian Johnston

Ontario, CAN

Tom, I'll tell you something you don't know, and which I didn't think was necessary to explain since your proposal of fat gain = muscle gain is so ludicrous.

By age 25 I weighed 185 pounds, give or take... in pretty lean condition of about 10%. I couldn't budge my weight, and so I began eating more, although not to bulk up excessively or purposely. After a year or so I eventually weighed 210 pounds. I stayed there for nearly four years and wanted to get lean again (tired of the look and love handles).

Be well aware that I'm familiar with coaxing off the fat. I am and was well aware that it had to come off slowly, and spent the next five months cycling my nutrition intake (days of lower kcal and days of normal to higher kcal)... in order to sacrifice as little lean tissue as possible. That's just a bit more than a pound of fat per week on average, which is very reasonable for a youngish, active person with some muscle mass to begin with (and a higher metabolism as a result).

At the end of the day I got back down to 185 pounds. This is not made up, but documented throughout IART materials (as I provided photos and information that time-lined my training over the years). That's a 25-pound fat gain, although I thought I was putting on some muscle because I carry fat very evenly throughout, but it was nothing more than a blanket of false security. AND, my testosterone levels were pretty good then, at that age.

Fast forward to age 40, whereby I was still weighing in at 185 pounds, although I was looking softer and smoother (likely a slight decrease in mass and a slight increase in fat due to eating the same amounts of food as the muscles became complacent to my training methods).

The ONLY times I increased my muscle mass was during a few blitz cycles (as per the book Apex), but that was before age 40 (I was looking pretty good in my mid to late 30s as a result), and then eventually with Zone Training, whereby I'm again at the 10% mark at just over 200 pounds... now age 47.

You can hypothesize all you want, that 25 pounds of added fat just was not enough... that close to 4 years of carrying that fat was just not long enough... that dropping the 25 pounds over the course of 5 months just wasn't slow enough. Whatever... I've been fat/bulked more than once, and it was during my ealier, higher testosterone years that I carried it the longest with no positive influence on muscle mass. The only positive influences for me were training methodologies that shook my foundation and forced the muscles to grow. Not so different from Arthur's view on body part specialization when he recommended 8 exercises in infrequent bouts.
Open User Options Menu

gerry-hitman

Why do we lift weights, whats the purpose of bodybuilding?

To be as lean and muscular as possible.

Getting fat, whither it produces some extra gain in lean mass or not, matters shit, as it defeats the purpose of bodybuilding.

A fat man with muscle is still a fat man.

Tom if getting fat actually produced the results you claim it can than MAYBE it might be an option..But it DOES NOT, you loom like a fat man, you do not look muscular, you look like the very kind of person someone who gets into bodybuilding wants to CHANGE from.

Give this foolishness up..
Open User Options Menu

AShortt

Ontario, CAN

What likely happened with Tom is prior to 'the fattening', is he wasn't training that well or eating reasonably. With years of practice and lots of surplus cals he made some progress...like we all do. This Tom has confused with overeating as a key element to muscle growth.

From what I have seen over the years, Johnston has been meticulous about tracking REAL changes as they happen...very objective. This means willing to see where fat fooled him like it does most guys with our desire to be big.

Don't be fooled.

Regards,
Andrew
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

Brian Johnston wrote:
Ellington likely was suggesting that a fat person can exercise and lose the fat and gain muscle (and even use the energy from fat to fuel the body in muscle development).

Brian,
Exactly; this approach is not rocket science. You talked about being an advanced athlete weighing 185 lbs and very ripped and then suddenly still being 185 lbs around age 40 but having a composition change where you were fatter and less muscular at that weight.

IMO your explanation of why this happened is flawed - the muscles do not "become complacent to your training methods". If you can refute the theory of progressive resistance please provide better proof to back it up; here's what I believe actually happened to you:

You had been maintaining an unrealistically low level of bodyfat at 185 lbs, for an advanced athlete this provides a strong stimulus to drop muscle and gain fat.

There are times when I have unintentionally become very lean (sometimes life gets in the way); during these times I have noted, like you, that carrying a lot of muscle with very little fat was simply an impossible condition to maintain and that I could not stay at that same weight being so lean without soon gaining fat and losing muscle.

You go on to describe "blitzes" wherein you gain more muscle and detail the results in a book. No doubt you've used complicated rocket science to account for the fact that you indeed bulked up and turned the fat into muscle to get up to around 210 in very lean condition.

If you would like people to believe that you maintained that same ultra lean look while lean gaining up from 185 to 210, well that's the fantastic and the impossible that every aspiring trainee wants, maybe you should sell courses ;)
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

Photos were in the books, and I used a body comp system as well. Even if the system was flawed, the photos made it evident that I maintained my leanness. And yes, I did sell courses/books, via the IART.

Keep getting fat and enjoy it. Nothing more to say as your thoughts on weight training and progressively loading are flawed to say the least. Keep doing what you're always doing, and you'll keep having what you'll always have. Guess you said that?
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

logicbdj wrote:
Photos were in the books, and I used a body comp system as well. Even if the system was flawed, the photos made it evident that I maintained my leanness. And yes, I did sell courses/books, via the IART.

Keep getting fat and enjoy it. Nothing more to say as your thoughts on weight training and progressively loading are flawed to say the least. Keep doing what you're always doing, and you'll keep having what you'll always have. Guess you said that?


Brian,
you reduced a bit for every photo shoot to get the best pics because you are bodybuilder vain about having a dainty wasp sized waist!

C'mon, I think you know very well you can't maintain muscle led alone build it with such low bodyfat levels.

I build thick muscle for power sports and maintain a high strength to weight ratio, but I don't fret over my waist; think I will keep on doing that even if it horrifies you so.

I find it amusing that you, Gerry and Andrew have collectively come up with various theories including steroids and photoshop to explain my results. You have created elaborate scenarios, fiction with real depth I am impressed by - and equally so the extent to which you will go to support your own cherished theories no matter how odd they may be.

Clearly you gentlemen have taken your own training theories to a place where the laws of physics are somehow suspended; two of my favourites:


1. Skipping breakfast to build muscle (Gerry).

2. Lifting heavier poundages in the basic lifts at a heavier bodyweight but attributing it to "skill development" and claiming to actually be carrying more muscle after reducing to a lighter bodyweight despite being much weaker in those same exercises (Andrew).

Can anyone help explain to these athletes why each of these theories are flawed?
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

you reduced a bit for every photo shoot to get the best pics because you are bodybuilder vain about having a dainty wasp sized waist!

Reduced what... fat? No, I doubt I ever got below 10%, and that's where I like to stay... that's plenty of fat, whereas competition bodybuilders typically get to 5-6% and sometimes lower. My waist is not dainty, and I use 300 pounds on the MedX low back machine... my lumbars are thick.

C'mon, I think you know very well you can't maintain muscle led alone build it with such low bodyfat levels.

Very odd how I achieved it, as well as many others who undertook the blitz strategy outlined in the book Apex. They were amazed that they actually upped their body weights by 5 pounds on average on a two week blitz, and without eating additional calories... literally got a bit leaner while adding the muscle. This has been done numerous times in bodybuilding history, and is a known fact of adaptation. Something YOU never experienced, and so shut up about it, fat man.

I build thick muscle for power sports and maintain a high strength to weight ratio, but I don't fret over my waist; think I will keep on doing that even if it horrifies you so.

Actually, in that last photo, you look skinny-fat. Not sure if you know what that means.

In terms of your 'blue' photo, even a half-blind idiot can see the addition of shadows, etc., likely caused by altering the contrast on your black and white photo. Not my fault if they look different, but I certainly would never say you took steroids... if so, you have poor receptor sites.

Clearly you gentlemen have taken your own training theories to a place where the laws of physics are somehow suspended.


Not sure how you relate this to me, as it merely reflects GAS, the SAID Principle, and some other basics of how the body adapts. Pretty simple stuff, Mr. Rocket Scientist.

Best wishes... Mr. 40-inch waist.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Tom wrote:
I find it amusing that you, Gerry and Andrew have collectively come up with various theories including steroids and photoshop to explain my results.

==Scott==

What results? Other than that picture of you with your gut hanging out, from my recollection I can't say I've seen enough pictures of you to form any opinion on your physique? As Brian says your avatar picture could have been cleverly lighted and posed to make the muscles look bigger than they really are.

Reminds me of the old Joe Weider pictures that are harshly lit to try and make him look massive. Certainly you must have some straight on double bicep type pictures that were shot of you when you were in peak condition?
Open User Options Menu

logicbdj

Ontario, CAN

What's even more amusing is that Tom doesn't have a clue what I've experienced over the past 30+ years or the degree to which I kept records and experimented... or to what extremes... but he's pretty darn sure he knows what my problems are.

And then he suggests that I couldn't have possibly put on more muscle mass while maintaining about 10% body weight. Well, if a person naturally is around 10%, with or without training, it's not a big deal to stay at 10%. It's only when that figure drops below 'what is normal' or any person in question. But, of course, he knows that.
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

logicbdj wrote:
you reduced a bit for every photo shoot to get the best pics because you are bodybuilder vain about having a dainty wasp sized waist!

Reduced what... fat? No, I doubt I ever got below 10%, and that's where I like to stay... that's plenty of fat, whereas competition bodybuilders typically get to 5-6% and sometimes lower. My waist is not dainty, and I use 300 pounds on the MedX low back machine... my lumbars are thick.

C'mon, I think you know very well you can't maintain muscle led alone build it with such low bodyfat levels.

Very odd how I achieved it, as well as many others who undertook the blitz strategy outlined in the book Apex. They were amazed that they actually upped their body weights by 5 pounds on average on a two week blitz, and without eating additional calories... literally got a bit leaner while adding the muscle. This has been done numerous times in bodybuilding history, and is a known fact of adaptation. Something YOU never experienced, and so shut up about it, fat man.

??? You say the most outrageous things Brian; I too am amazed that anyone could increase their bodyweight by 5 lbs without eating additional calories, let alone a hard training athlete!

Without additional calories an athlete can gain muscle while losing fat but they cannot increase their bodyweight - please explain how 5 lbs of bodyweight was gained from thin air in your bat cave experiments.
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

entsminger wrote:
Tom wrote:
I find it amusing that you, Gerry and Andrew have collectively come up with various theories including steroids and photoshop to explain my results.

==Scott==

What results? Other than that picture of you with your gut hanging out, from my recollection I can't say I've seen enough pictures of you to form any opinion on your physique? As Brian says your avatar picture could have been cleverly lighted and posed to make the muscles look bigger than they really are.

Reminds me of the old Joe Weider pictures that are harshly lit to try and make him look massive. Certainly you must have some straight on double bicep type pictures that were shot of you when you were in peak condition?


Here's another results pic Scott. Brian was teasing me about my waist in my fat pic, where it probably was 40" but it's only 37" now that I have a six pack again and a much larger chest than in the fat pic, time to repeat the process.

It's a pretty simple and old school idea that you can turn fat into muscle; I am not making outrageous claims to have trained athletes to gain bodyweight from nothing :)
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
Administrators Online: Mod Starr
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy