Was going to go double, now thinking single.

concorde

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

The goal of increasing muscle mass, is as hollow, shallow and vain as liposuction, facelifts, boob jobs, or ab implants. It's just pathetic.
I reckon you need to see a psych, to overcome your self image issues.

Says who? You?! Think I'd rather listen to myself than you, thanks for the concern though. I'll think that thought when I'm lying on a beach looking quality whilst you're looking like some skinny cunt.

Bored now, ciao.

cooldad

I am no expert, but I am sure that sugar doesn't build muscle, and that fat can't be converted into muscle, so by your logic you are happy top put on fat to bulk up, then get rid of the fat for the 'desired look'

I believe the correct response is dafuq?

cooldad

concorde

cooldad wrote:

I am no expert, but I am sure that sugar doesn't build muscle, and that fat can't be converted into muscle, so by your logic you are happy top put on fat to bulk up, then get rid of the fat for the 'desired look'

I believe the correct response is dafuq?

I said I eat healthy... take from that, that I don't eat bags of sugar!

cooldad

One of us is confused

Concorde wrote:

Might change it up next year and keep putting weight on all winter then go like mad fitness wise over the summer to lose the weight and excess fat. But the stage I'm at, at the moment I'm still putting weight on. Not to mention when the time does come to lose 1/2 a stone it makes riding so much easier too.

The Rookie

Concorde wrote:

I will go for that instead then. I should be able to cope with it I just can never be arsed to go up a hill, and def not go up them very fast. Not unfit I just don't see the point! Lol.

I don't get this, you want to look Aesthetically pleasing while pushing your bike up a hill, while putting on fat (calorie surplus means it won't be muscle, for it to be muscle you'd be working out and not be in surplus).....

Freud would have been able to write a whole book about you!

YeehaaMcgee

Concorde wrote:

I turn an easy gear and go slow as hell up hills to burn less cals, conserve energy making my GOAL for the summer months easier.

Yep, if the goal is to get fat.



Or look like this...


Whichever one of those is you, I'd rather just look like me, frankly. Not because I'm some kind of Adonis, but because my sense of worth is not tied to my appearances.

concorde

The beginner, clearly you have no clue so why chip in. I don't push my bike up any fucking hill and have never said I do!

It's called bulking then cutting. Google it, read about it then comment.

Chunkers1980

I've just done so and found:

In the muscle magazines you always hear about ‘bulking’ up then ‘cutting’ down before a contest, should you do this too? Probably not. Professional bodybuilders and very advanced bodybuilders (those who have been lifting seriously more than 7 years) benefit from bulking cutting but in my opinion, beginners and intermediates do not. In fact, there are many disadvantages for beginners and intermediates. Wild weight swings are not good for your body. Obesity is an epidemic in the western world and most beginners and intermediates are no exception. The last thing an overweight or obese beginner should be encouraged to do is to “bulk”! Even more important for a beginner or intermediate bodybuilder than learning to lift weights is to learn what good nutrition is and being able to control their bodyfat levels. There is no reason at all that a beginner or intermediate bodybuilder cant gain muscle AND lose fat at the same time with good nutrition, weightlifting and cardio. It is much easier (and healthier) to keep your body fat low year-round than it is to pig out for a few months and then have to diet for 4 months to get all the fat back off. Why not be ripped all the time rather than just one month a year????? It’s easier, better for your body, looks better, AND its easier – who likes dieting anyway!

concorde

Chunkers1980 wrote:

I've just done so and found:

In the muscle magazines you always hear about ‘bulking’ up then ‘cutting’ down before a contest, should you do this too? Probably not. Professional bodybuilders and very advanced bodybuilders (those who have been lifting seriously more than 7 years) benefit from bulking cutting but in my opinion, beginners and intermediates do not. In fact, there are many disadvantages for beginners and intermediates. Wild weight swings are not good for your body. Obesity is an epidemic in the western world and most beginners and intermediates are no exception. The last thing an overweight or obese beginner should be encouraged to do is to “bulk”! Even more important for a beginner or intermediate bodybuilder than learning to lift weights is to learn what good nutrition is and being able to control their bodyfat levels. There is no reason at all that a beginner or intermediate bodybuilder cant gain muscle AND lose fat at the same time with good nutrition, weightlifting and cardio. It is much easier (and healthier) to keep your body fat low year-round than it is to pig out for a few months and then have to diet for 4 months to get all the fat back off. Why not be ripped all the time rather than just one month a year????? It’s easier, better for your body, looks better, AND its easier – who likes dieting anyway!

He's talking extremes. Dirty bulking, I don't eat shit, I eat properly. I know my maintenance calories and I eat 10% calories more than that to ensure I'm gaining muscle as quickly as I can. As a result I gain some fat too. Which I will lose at a later date. That in my eyes is better than putting on muscle more slowly. It's quicker and easier to manage. It's mega tough to try to eat at maintenance, stay lean and put on muscle at a tidy rate. It's why the VAST majority of people looking to gain muscle do it my way... as opposed to doing it your lots way who have never even tried training weights. SO don't even know why you're bothered about it.

Theoreticians here read studies all day and claim that you can gain muscle even in deficit. Meatheads go out there, lift till they are blue in the face, eat in surplus and gain muscle.

Is it possible to add muscle without a surplus... sure. Is it optimal? NOPE! That's the be all and end all of it! Simple as that.*

*Excluding overweight people. They can build tidy amounts of muscle whilst in a deficit, as their body does some recomposition i.e. burns the fat and uses that as their calories. This will only happen for so long when they get to a level of body fat % that the body no longer wants to get rid of the fat, it wants to hold on to it, then they'll struggle to put on muscle and will have to eat in surplus to get the extra calories needed which the body is no longer taking from the body fat.

cooldad

MEN who work out and buy facial products are more likely to be twats, it has emerged.

Chunkers1980

Nice one CD - that's brilliant.

concorde

I almost laughed then :roll:

An analogy for those struggling to understand it.

Your body is a house. Somebody says you need to double the size of the house (bodybuilding)
You can do it two ways:

The house is built with a double layer of bricks (1 layer = fat)
You can knock down the one layer, leaving the house with 1 remaining layer and double the size of the house (body) using the bricks gained from knocking down the second layer (fat). This is body recomposition.

Or

You can order in new supplies, more bricks(protein) more builders (fats & carbs). Downside is you may order slightly too many (excess cals) and have some left over (gain fat)

Doesn't take a genius to realise one is quicker and also easier.

Chunkers1980

WTF? You're not a house. Although meat heads are built like brick shite houses, you're still not actually a house, you're a lot more complicated than that.

Why does it need to be quick? Houses are best built on great foundations.

welshkev

I used to work out a lot ( I was a semi pro rugby player) I used to lift fark loads.

I used to train with a pro runner who weighed 12 stone soaking wet. we each used to lift roughly the same - I could curl more than him though - reps with approx 50/60kg

but we didn't put on weight, i'd stay at around 12 and a half stone no matter how much the weight I was lifting increased. it was counter productive to the reason I was training in the first place.

if you just want to be a bulker, it looks stupid IMHO. but each to their own.

you're not that guy from 'the call centre' programme in Swansea are you?

concorde

welshkev wrote:

I used to work out a lot ( I was a semi pro rugby player) I used to lift fark loads.

I used to train with a pro runner who weighed 12 stone soaking wet. we each used to lift roughly the same - I could curl more than him though - reps with approx 50/60kg

but we didn't put on weight, i'd stay at around 12 and a half stone no matter how much the weight I was lifting increased. it was counter productive to the reason I was training in the first place.

if you just want to be a bulker, it looks stupid IMHO. but each to their own.

you're not that guy from 'the call centre' programme in Swansea are you?

What?! You stayed at the same weight and your lifts went up? How is that even physically possible? To lift more you need more muscle mass, surely?! More muscle mass means putting on weight! The reason there are no World Champion powerlifters that weight 10 stone!

YeehaaMcgee

NO! You don't need more muscle mass, you need stronger, functional muscles. There's a very good reason why people like rock climbers are as strong as apes, but appear to be made from fusewire.

YeehaaMcgee

Or to put it in language a meathead would understand, bigger does not mean stronger. Bigger means heavier. Heavier means bad.

Chunkers1980

Fast twitching muscles.

concorde

To an extent but there still needs to be increased muscle mass. You can't curl 30kgs one year and curl 60kgs the next year and have the same muscle mass, not a chance.

concorde

Plus, like I said aesthetics. Not doing it to be particularly stronger, doing it to be bigger. Not a monster! Just bigger! Hypertrophy. Hypertrophy rep ranges. So I need to grow! You can't grow without excess calories! Simple! Thermodynamics will tell you that. You're not talking about the same things as I am.

Can you get BIGGER? (aesthetics) without eating excess calories? NO!

YeehaaMcgee

Sadly, we're not really allowed to just straight up call you a pathetic dumbass here any more, so I won't. Rest assured however, that if I was allowed to call you a pathetic dumbass, then I would jump at the chance to call you a pathetic dumbass

concorde

That's a good thing then as I would be so offended by some old cunt calling me that. Times change. Thinking changes. Things move on. 12 1/2 stone Welshkev said he was and it would be counterproductive for him to put weight on. Name me an International Rugby player that's 12 1/2 stone these days, hardly any! Shane Williams is about that, he's tiny! Times change, those that don't adapt get left behind...

thekickingmule

I think you have it the wrong way round. You say you need calories to grow, then lose the weight by lifting weights and you get 'bigger', when what you should do is be lifting the weights, and eating the calories to keep up with what you're burning.

I guarantee that what you are proposing to do will leave you with a huge beer gut and not much stronger. It's much better to lost the weight and then build it up from there.

I was always told that a fat person can maybe do 100 situps a morning, but if they don't stop eating the donuts and McDonalds, that amazing 6-pack will be hidden behind walls of fat. It's a very good point!

nicklouse

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Sadly, we're not really allowed to just straight up call you a pathetic dumbass here any more, so I won't. Rest assured however, that if I was allowed to call you a pathetic dumbass, then I would jump at the chance to call you a pathetic dumbass

one word is needed.

Plonker.

concorde

thekickingmule wrote:

I think you have it the wrong way round. You say you need calories to grow, then lose the weight by lifting weights and you get 'bigger', when what you should do is be lifting the weights, and eating the calories to keep up with what you're burning.

I guarantee that what you are proposing to do will leave you with a huge beer gut and not much stronger. It's much better to lost the weight and then build it up from there.

I was always told that a fat person can maybe do 100 situps a morning, but if they don't stop eating the donuts and McDonalds, that amazing 6-pack will be hidden behind walls of fat. It's a very good point!

Oh no, not another one. Another bro that has never lifted in his life but knows how it works! How do you propose to create new mass (muscle) if you eat 2,500 calories per day but also burn 2,500 calories per day?

welshkev

Concorde wrote:

That's a good thing then as I would be so offended by some old **** calling me that. Times change. Thinking changes. Things move on. 12 1/2 stone Welshkev said he was and it would be counterproductive for him to put weight on. Name me an International Rugby player that's 12 1/2 stone these days,hardly any! Shane Williams is about that, he's tiny! Times change, those that don't adapt get left behind...

but i'm only 5ft 9 and I could bench press twice my body weight. I could do what george north did to that Australian guy with most players

and as has been said before, I did get bigger, but heavier..no. improved muscle mass and usage

Thewaylander

this thread is awesome!

Gasically lots of people going your wrong and producing evidence, and then the OP crying and saying oh but I want to be pretty... Thanks people this has made me chuckle at more Gym boy stupidity, "I want to be big and pretty but acctually useless at sport!" muhahaha

concorde

welshkev wrote:

Concorde wrote:

That's a good thing then as I would be so offended by some old **** calling me that. Times change. Thinking changes. Things move on. 12 1/2 stone Welshkev said he was and it would be counterproductive for him to put weight on. Name me an International Rugby player that's 12 1/2 stone these days,hardly any! Shane Williams is about that, he's tiny! Times change, those that don't adapt get left behind...

but i'm only 5ft 9 and I could bench press twice my body weight. I could do what george north did to that Australian guy with most players

and as has been said before, I did get bigger, but heavier..no. improved muscle mass and usage

Good stats!

TheWaylander, mine and your definitions of 'evidence' must be a bit different. Where the fuck is the evidence in this thread?!

welshkev

I should add that these days i'm a fat, lazy cant that hasn't even set foot in a gym for nearly 2 years