Started Lyle McDonald's Hypertrophy Routine

[Alex.V]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Are you just saying that many "hardgainers" are simply not working hard enough or doing things right (or perhaps they are just physically immature at this point in their lives and won't be "hardgainers" in a few years)?

Or are you making a stronger claim against "genetic limitations"?

Just to be completely open here, I'm quite convinced by articles Casey Butt has written on the idea of "genetic limitations".

http://www.weightrainer.net/articles.html

To be sure, I'm not stating there is no such thing as genetic limitations- apologies if that wasn't clear. There certainly are- we are not capable of putting on limitless amounts of lean body mass, I'm simply stating there is FAR greater parity in the human population than those who discuss somatypes and "hardgainers" would have you believe. By the genetic limitations argument specifically, I meant the argument put forward that genetic limitations will forever relegate some people to needing superhuman effort to gain a single pound of muscle, therefore they're simply condemned to be small (and it's not their fault.)

In fact, if you look at Casey Butt's writing, he does state that the multitude of complex factors used to predict maximum growth can all be put aside for all practical intents and purposes, and the greatest correlation is simply joint size and stature overall. Given how well this model works, it would seem to argue that the "hardgainer" concept is a myth- even those with a small frame and smaller joints can still gain a significant amount of muscle.

There are simply too many variables that could account for a failure to gain mass that you can't simply lump it in as being a hardgainer... sort of like Fibromyalgia- there's zero evidence whatsoever that it is a discrete condition, rather it's likely a combination of several factors, from underlying disease conditions to psychosomatic components. The problem with calling it "Fibromyalgia" is that you no longer focus your effort on determining multiple discrete causes, but rather look at the condition overall and attempt to find an overarching prescription that works for all of it.

[r2473]

In fact, if you look at Casey Butt's writing, he does state that the multitude of complex factors used to predict maximum growth can all be put aside for all practical intents and purposes, and the greatest correlation is simply joint size and stature overall. Given how well this model works, it would seem to argue that the "hardgainer" concept is a myth- even those with a small frame and smaller joints can still gain a significant amount of muscle.

That's pretty much the gist of it.

People are different.....but not really THAT different. Anyone who really tries will get "good" results in the long run.

[blackboard]

I believe genetics will always play a factor when talking about physical limitations. I guarantee you world record sprinters had above average speed before training. I will never forget this huge guy in my neighborhood. He would show up once a month at the gym and bench 5 plates. He was just huge for no reason. We saw him carrying a full size couch on his shoulders across the park one day lol. This leads me to believe the gifted and top % are completely different from the average.

I agree with Chris mason 100% when it comes to the author but I would ask you Chris, were you ever a skinny kid or adult? I’m not sure if just anyone could ever reach a 900lb squat or have 20inch arms?

[chris mason]

Here is a photo of me from my senior year of high school (on the right). I was not skinny, but I was not huge by any means and I had already begun lifting weights the summer before.

[chris mason]

As for that goofy-ass overly complicated formula, there is one using wrist circumference which is MUCH simpler and just as accurate when gauged vs. the measurements of the top bodybuilders as in that article.

Oh, and a guy that trains with us is 6'3" tall, 260 lbs, has legit 20" arms, and has abs and he is totally drug free.

[JacobH]

Here is a photo of me from my senior year of high school (on the right). I was not skinny, but I was not huge by any means and I had already begun lifting weights the summer before.

You were a pretty muscly little fucker though lol

[chris mason]

You were a pretty muscly little fucker though lol

I was lean back then .

[r2473]

As for that goofy-ass overly complicated formula, there is one using wrist circumference which is MUCH simpler and just as accurate when gauged vs. the measurements of the top bodybuilders as in that article.

Oh, and a guy that trains with us is 6'3" tall, 260 lbs, has legit 20" arms, and has abs and he is totally drug free.

The author of that goofy-ass article would very much like to hear from your friend. Why not formally take him up on his challenge?

If you do follow through on this, let us know how it turns out. Seriously.

http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html

If you are a bodybuilder or strength athlete having verifiable statistics in excess of what the equations of this article predict and have competed in a drug-tested bodybuilding contest then, please, contact me and I'll include the information in an ongoing statistical analysis - your name will be withheld upon request. This invitation has been open since this article was first posted (in early 2007 and dating back through it's predecessors to 2000) and remains so. To those who have contributed I'd like to thank you here. I appreciate your honesty and even bravery ...if that's the right word.

Over the years I've also received many emails full of unsubstantiated claims, hostile remarks and even personal attacks because of the information presented here. But in that time, though many have told me they're easily going to surpass these predictions, I haven 't received any legitimate, verifiable statistics that significantly exceed the results of the equations presented above ...including correspondance with some of today's top-ranked drug-free bodybuilders upon which the equations were partially based. So, please, if you're not able to provide verifiable measurements contradicting the information in this article then don't send me slander, accusations and hate mail.

[chevelle2291]

Never understood people's fascination with genetic potential.

[Alex.V]

Never understood people's fascination with genetic potential.

This. Who gives a crap. Whatever yours is, just assume you're not there yet and keep working.

[r2473]

Never understood people's fascination with genetic potential.

It's helped me in a lot of different ways. Not really so much for understanding what size I could be at my "max". But more so for giving me a perspective and road map on my weightlifting / bodybuilding journey.

For me, its proved very accurate. I took bod pod tests when I was "untrained". The equations predicting my "untrained" LBM were very close to what I actually tested at. Over the course of a few years of lifting, I continued to take bod pod test. Showed me exactly how much of my weight gain was LBM and how much was fat. And sure enough, it was very close to what his equations predicted. Pretty amazing really. And at this point, it gives me an idea of the cost / benefit of working to add more muscle.

It has also helped me put muscle building claims I read in some sort of context and perspective. Instead of worrying that "some internet dude is making amazing gains, what's wrong with me, I must be doing it all wrong or be a hardgainer", I can look at claims a bit more rationally.

I understand this approach isn't right for everybody. I have come to understand that it isn't right for very many people at all. But it is right for me.

[chevelle2291]

It's helped me in a lot of different ways. Not really so much for understanding what size I could be at my "max". But more so for giving me a perspective and road map on my weightlifting / bodybuilding journey.

For me, its proved very accurate. I took bod pod tests when I was "untrained". The equations predicting my "untrained" LBM were very close to what I actually tested at. Over the course of a few years of lifting, I continued to take bod pod test. Showed me exactly how much of my weight gain was LBM and how much was fat. And sure enough, it was very close to what his equations predicted. Pretty amazing really. And at this point, it gives me an idea of the cost / benefit of working to add more muscle.

It has also helped me put muscle building claims I read in some sort of context and perspective. Instead of worrying that "some internet dude is making amazing gains, what's wrong with me, I must be doing it all wrong or be a hardgainer", I can look at claims a bit more rationally.

I understand this approach isn't right for everybody. I have come to understand that it isn't right for very many people at all. But it is right for me.

So when you appeared to close in on what the calculator believed was your potential, did you stop weight training completely?

My issue with these calculators, etc. is that they just don't take into account the true genetic freaks out there. I don't like the idea that if someone doesn't neatly fit into whatever numbers this calculator spits out, he's automatically using gear. I just do not believe that bodybuilding reached its natural peak with Reg Park.

The demonization of AAS use that a lot of these authors seem to promote also bothers me, but that's a completely different issue.

I just do not believe that bodybuilding reached its natural peak with Reg Park.

[joey54]

Serge Nubret might have took it past Reg.

[r2473]

So when you appeared to close in on what the calculator believed was your potential, did you stop weight training completely?

I just do not believe that bodybuilding reached its natural peak with Reg Park.

Are you nuts? I'm nowhere close to my potential. I still continue to weight train, but I have stopped training for muscle mass.

Humans certainly haven't "evolved" since 1950. We are the same now as then. You can believe that "supplements" will allow you to build more muscle if you want, but there are natural limiting factors to muscle growth that supplements can't address.


The amount of lean body mass a human body can develop and maintain is limited by it's own, naturally occurring, hormone levels. A fundamental reason as to why males carry more lean body mass than females, and have the potential to develop greater amounts of muscle in less time, is precisely because their natural testosterone levels are many times higher than females.

Testosterone is required for muscle growth and maintenance, and there is a limit as to the amount of testosterone the male body can produce in good health. Resistance training results in micro-trauma to protein structures within the muscle cells and circulating testosterone is instrumental in the repair and replacement of these structures. Once the body has attained the maximum amount of muscle mass that the available testosterone can maintain - i.e. "repair" after training and replace with an equal amount of "new" proteins - then no additional proteins, and therefore no additional muscle mass, can be added and maintained. It is a fundamental and irrefutable fact.

The normal adult male serum testosterone level for a man under 40 years of age is between 3 and 10 ng/ml, and decreases with increasing age. This clearly imposes a personal limit on the amount of lean body mass that can be developed and maintained without the use of exogenous anabolic drugs (i.e. "steroids"), and any further development beyond this point will require drug-use. Other major factors influencing ultimate muscular potential are muscle belly lengths, fast-twitch to slow-twitch fiber ratio, etc.

[chris mason]

The author of that goofy-ass article would very much like to hear from your friend. Why not formally take him up on his challenge?

If you do follow through on this, let us know how it turns out. Seriously.

http://www.weightrainer.net/potential.html

If you are a bodybuilder or strength athlete having verifiable statistics in excess of what the equations of this article predict and have competed in a drug-tested bodybuilding contest then, please, contact me and I'll include the information in an ongoing statistical analysis - your name will be withheld upon request. This invitation has been open since this article was first posted (in early 2007 and dating back through it's predecessors to 2000) and remains so. To those who have contributed I'd like to thank you here. I appreciate your honesty and even bravery ...if that's the right word.

Over the years I've also received many emails full of unsubstantiated claims, hostile remarks and even personal attacks because of the information presented here. But in that time, though many have told me they're easily going to surpass these predictions, I haven 't received any legitimate, verifiable statistics that significantly exceed the results of the equations presented above ...including correspondance with some of today's top-ranked drug-free bodybuilders upon which the equations were partially based. So, please, if you're not able to provide verifiable measurements contradicting the information in this article then don't send me slander, accusations and hate mail.

Actually, I said the formula was goofy and overly complicated. I did not comment on the article itself.

[JacobH]

It's helped me in a lot of different ways. Not really so much for understanding what size I could be at my "max". But more so for giving me a perspective and road map on my weightlifting / bodybuilding journey.

For me, its proved very accurate. I took bod pod tests when I was "untrained". The equations predicting my "untrained" LBM were very close to what I actually tested at. Over the course of a few years of lifting, I continued to take bod pod test. Showed me exactly how much of my weight gain was LBM and how much was fat. And sure enough, it was very close to what his equations predicted. Pretty amazing really. And at this point, it gives me an idea of the cost / benefit of working to add more muscle.

It has also helped me put muscle building claims I read in some sort of context and perspective. Instead of worrying that "some internet dude is making amazing gains, what's wrong with me, I must be doing it all wrong or be a hardgainer", I can look at claims a bit more rationally.

I understand this approach isn't right for everybody. I have come to understand that it isn't right for very many people at all. But it is right for me.

I don't really see the part where it helped you. It gives you an idea of the cost/benefit of working to add more muscle? What? To maximize your "genetic potential" you have to work as hard and as smart as you can regardless. And to keep the gains you have to continue to do that anyway. Sorry I just don't see what these calculations, even if they were 100% accurate (which I'm sure is nowhere near the case) are doing for you.

[chevelle2291]

Are you nuts? I'm nowhere close to my potential. I still continue to weight train, but I have stopped training for muscle mass.

Humans certainly haven't "evolved" since 1950. We are the same now as then. You can believe that "supplements" will allow you to build more muscle if you want, but there are natural limiting factors to muscle growth that supplements can't address.

I'm not referring to supplementation. Park gained a certain level of fame when bodybuilding/weight training was still in its infancy. You really don't think that there are some straight-up genetic freaks from god-knows-where that couldn't make Park look like a chump and blow that muscular limit calculator out of the water? I certainly think so.

[Off Road]

You really don't think that there are some straight-up genetic freaks from god-knows-where that couldn't make Park look like a chump and blow that muscular limit calculator out of the water? I certainly think so.

I believe Park was a straight-up genetic freak. Since humans haven't changed much in the past years, and the stimulus needed to grow muscle hasn't changed in the past years, and the speed at which 'natural' genetic freaks can gain muscle hasn't changed much in the past years, I think Park would be a good representation of what could be the top of the ladder. It's always possible that somebody could pass him, but that would be a very, very, very rare exception.

[chris mason]

I am also 99% sure Park used anabolics later in his career. So using him isn't really a great idea.

[r2473]

I am also 99% sure Park used anabolics later in his career. So using him isn't really a great idea.

Opinions abound on this. Nobody seems to know one way or the other.

One thing you can look at however are his stats at competitions early and later in his career. Surprisingly, they are very similar.

So if Park did use steroids, they didn't have much of an effect.

And early in his career, steroids simply weren't available. They may have "existed" (in lab testing), but not in any practical sense. So we have strong reason to believe that the physique Park built is natural.

Another interesting thing (at least it was to me) is that smaller naturals are "only" able to add ~30 lbs of muscle over their entire careers. Dave Goodin backs this up (as he says in this video Layne Norton did).

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insidethelife18.htm

A larger man like Park is "only" able to add ~40 lbs. of muscle (which is what he said in interviews I've read).

[Cards]

Another interesting thing (at least it was to me) is that smaller naturals are "only" able to add ~30 lbs of muscle over their entire careers. Dave Goodin backs this up (as he says in this video Layne Norton did).

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/insidethelife18.htm

A larger man like Park is "only" able to add ~40 lbs. of muscle (which is what he said in interviews I've read).

I'm 5'7 and am pretty sure I've already added 30lbs of muscle over the 5 to 6 years I've been doing this....and am still going to add more over the next 20 years.

[DontTakeEmOff31]

I'm 5'7 and am pretty sure I've already added 30lbs of muscle over the 5 to 6 years I've been doing this....and am still going to add more over the next 20 years.

I think the argument is that its 40 lbs of lean muscle mass (not an ounce of fat). The 70 lbs of "muscle" I've put on since lifting is a mixture of muscle and fat obviously (it may visually look like all muscle or mostly muscle but that's not the case).

On topic, I've never been a fan of these formulas that state the maximum potential someone has. I find it hard to believe that someone was able to 100% figure out the most amount of muscle or size a person was able to achieve, especially as records across all sports continue to be broke (raw power lifting comes to mind).

[blackboard]

We could also discuss how there is VERY little scientific backing whatsoever for the "genetic limitations" argument (the vast majority of human beings are capable of getting much faster, bigger and stronger than they seem to believe), but that's a much larger topic.

Although we may be lacking scholarly peer reviewed science experiments, I believe enough people have trained the human body over the years resulting in the ability to be realistic about results. It’s almost like using a max bench press chart; yeah it’s not 100% accurate but the numbers will be close for the majority.


I also must say talking about genetics doesn’t have to imply any excuses are about to made for getting faster or stronger but at the same type let’s not pretend like we as human are somehow only using 10% of our physical abilities, “like the 10% brain myth”. The average man no matter how hard he trains will never squat 900lb or run a 4.2 40 even with perfect training.

[r2473]

I'm 5'7 and am pretty sure I've already added 30lbs of muscle over the 5 to 6 years I've been doing this....and am still going to add more over the next 20 years.

This will depend on a few things. Most notably, where you were when you started. For example, since birth, I've added over 170 lbs. of lean mass. Shortly after I got out of college, I added ~20 lbs. of lean mass by just sitting on my couch. I "filled out".

So the ~30 lbs. Goodin is talking about means you are starting from "untrained" but physically mature.

I really doubt Goodin's lying about how much muscle he's gained. And bear in mind, his 30 lbs. of muscle gain has been good enough to win multiple prestigious titles. Park's 40 lbs. of muscle gain was good enough to make him a "genetic freak / legend".

I think the argument is that its 40 lbs of lean muscle mass (not an ounce of fat). The 70 lbs of "muscle" I've put on since lifting is a mixture of muscle and fat obviously (it may visually look like all muscle or mostly muscle but that's not the case).

Right. You need to test lbm gain using an accurate device. I used bod pod. I find it important to use something that can't be manipulated. For example, when I was ~250 lbs., using on-line calculators, I estimated that I was carrying ~195 lbm. Now, that's crazy if you think about it. That would have given me lbm equivalent to Steve Reeves. Bod pod gave me the real story. I only had 181 lbm. ~27.5% bodyfat. You don't have to pull "too tight" or suck in "too much" to get a very inaccurate wasit measurement (which causes the on-line calculators to give very inaccurate bodyfat estimates). Same goes for calipers. I actually had the guys in the bod pod office give me a caliper bodyfat test (so these guys know what they are doing). The results were much different.

You also need to compare gains at similar bodyfat percentages. As you get fatter, you will gain some LBM no matter what and as you get leaner, you will lose some LBM no matter what. I'm not really sure this is muscle. Its just "stuff" that isn't fat.

I was amazed how little lbm you actually lose when you cut weight. I cut back down to 200 lbs. 173 lbm. Tested at 13.5% bodyfat. So of the 50 lbs. of bodyweight I lost, only ~8 lbs. was lbm. 16% of the total. However, if I had convined myself that I had 195 lbm before cutting, then I would have lost 22 lbm or nearly 50% of the loss.

Oh, and in case anyone really cares, I'm 6 feet 1/2 inches and 156 lbm is my estimated "untrained lbm". And this seems pretty accurate. My first bod pod test recorded 160 lbm, but I had lifted "a little". So if we assume 156 lbm to be accurate, I've gained ~17 lbs. of muscle. Almost exactly half of my estimated potential. This probably doesn't sound like a lot, but it might be more than you think.

Anyway, this stuff interests me because there seems to be a large gap between "perception" and "fact" in this area. That's the way it seems to me at least.

[chevelle2291]

fuck this natty shit I'm starting the JayStar cycle on Friday.