Quote: (08-28-2016 12:57 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Lifting to failure won't mean much if it's the same weight every time.

Maybe it is something to do with appetite regulation. Even if you were not deliberately counting calories and bulking, squatting and deadlifting heavy should make you hungry. If you lift and then don't eat, you're going to feel like shit (in my experience).

For linear progression I would lift, eat, and often collapse on the couch totally exhausted afterwards.

Sure, perhaps if I'd done 99% instead of 95%, all of a sudden them gainz would've burst forth like a flood.

Not really, simply not how life works. Everything is on a bell curve. One of my good friends does absolutely zero (he doesn't even know the names of any weightlifting movements), other than mow his lawn, makes zero effort to control his diet, and has a build somewhere between a barrel and a triangle.

Everybody gets internet bravado points for saying "nah you just didn't do X enough", but that's all anybody gets. A lot of the time it distracts men from playing to their strengths.

If you've had a serious, sustained and honest crack at gaining weight, and it's done nothing (especially versus the investment you've put in), your time might simply be better invested elsewhere, levering off the strengths you do have, to boost your SMV where you can.

Phoenix, I've yet to meet or hear of an able-bodied male who genuinely does everything right and fails to gain well, e.g:

-Bumps the calories- 1000+ caloric surplus per day, 40%+ of total cals as protein
-Does regular compound lifts, tracks progress, consistently increases weight and /or reps
-Sleeps before midnight and gets 8hrs+

Nearly always when someone puts the effort in but gets nowhere, they are falling short in one of these areas.

Like, simply eating that much should ensure *weight* gain. Then assuming he's sleeping and has at least low-end male tesosterone levels, correct lifting would ensure some of that is muscle gain.

Only reasons for not gaining here would be extreme stress, serious hormonal/digestive/muscular/neurological disorder, etc.

Totally agree about playing to your strengths though. For some guys this is not a channel it's worth the effort to excel in, and there are much quicker ways to significantly boost your SMV.

Quote: (08-28-2016 02:55 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Sure, perhaps if I'd done 99% instead of 95%, all of a sudden them gainz would've burst forth like a flood.

If you've had a serious, sustained and honest crack at gaining weight, and it's done nothing (especially versus the investment you've put in), your time might simply be better invested elsewhere, levering off the strengths you do have, to boost your SMV where you can.

Like I said at the bottom of the last page, your gain of 3KG in 5 months (7.2KG on a yearly basis) is actually a quite solid muscle gain rate. If you'd stuck with your program and diet for say, a period of 2 or 3 years, you would have ended up 14-20KG heavier. That would have made a huge difference to your life. Unfortunately 5 months is not a "sustained and honest crack at gaining weight", the process is much longer and slower for those of us who aren't genetically gifted (or on steroids).

Bodybuilding isn't like cardiovascular training, where you can see big improvements in a 10 week window of intense training. Its a gradual, incremental, process where it takes years for the real benefits to manifest.

edit re: SMV benefits, I'm going to quote a post on this I made a while ago:

Quote:Quote:

Weightlifting completely changed my life. When I was 18 I was 6ft (182cm) tall and 140lb (63kg). I got no girls. I'd be out in bars once or twice a week and could easily go a month or more without even KISSING a girl, nevermind banging.

I spent the best part of 6 years doing serious weight training (literally only missing workouts when on holiday, and even then often fitting in workouts in hotel gyms) and playing rugby. I ate until I wanted to puke during bulking phases, 4000-5000calories a day. I eventually hit 220lb (100kg) at the same height, at around a maintenance bodyfat of 12%. Since then I've maintained that, with slightly varying winter/summer bf%.

Once I reached a 'normal' weight of around 170-190lb I no longer found things an uphill battle - I never had to fight to overcome that bias against skinniness from girls. Once I hit 210-220lbs things changed massively. It was now a downhill battle - girls would open me. Going to any sort of party event I could be topless at (pool parties etc) was ridiculous - I'd literally have girls fighting over me. And nothing else changed - only my body - my face, hair, height, clothes etc were all pretty much identical to when I was 18.

This isn't even mentioning the other benefits you get from having an imposing physique - respect from other guys, nobody ever starting fights with you, being better at contact sports etc. And the long-term health benefits.

For the sake of 4.5 hours a week (I do 4x60min weight sessions these days, along with 30min of HIIT - stopped playing competitive rugby mostly) and watching your diet there are very few other things in life that will give you such positive returns. How much time do most people spend on a weekly basis watching TV or fucking around on the internet?

Quote: (08-28-2016 04:35 PM)RichieP Wrote:  

Phoenix, I've yet to meet or hear of an able-bodied male who genuinely does everything right and fails to gain well, e.g:

-Bumps the calories- 1000+ caloric surplus per day, 40%+ of total cals as protein
-Does regular compound lifts, tracks progress, consistently increases weight and /or reps
-Sleeps before midnight and gets 8hrs+

Nearly always when someone puts the effort in but gets nowhere, they are falling short in one of these areas.

Like, simply eating that much should ensure *weight* gain. Then assuming he's sleeping and has at least low-end male tesosterone levels, correct lifting would ensure some of that is muscle gain.

Only reasons for not gaining here would be extreme stress, serious hormonal/digestive/muscular/neurological disorder, etc.

Practically everything written here is nothing but arbitrary intuition.

Where are you getting these numbers from? How do you KNOW with certainty that this amount of calorie surplus + that amount of macro split = GUARANTEED GAINZ NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

You don't actually know with any empirical rigour, it's just something you read or heard somewhere and roughly FEEL is true.

The problem with the popular bodybuilding industry is that it lacks falsifiability, the concept that demarcates science and non-science.

Everything can be explained away, like a quasi-cult.

"Oh you didn't do the perfect ABC routine!"
"Oh you you didn't eat the perfect XYZ diet!"
"Oh you must've not eaten enough!"
"Oh you just must've not trained intensely!"

On and on... it's always the same. Never is any room given to the possibility that this shit simply might not be exactly true or that it just might not work for all.

There are some unfortunate souls such as in the OP who don't gain shit despite all due diligence, while there are others who pack on more muscle living in a coma.

Actually most of it is based on very simple, well-established biology and exercise science. The kind that you might find in a high school text book.

If you don't believe eating a large caloric surplus makes healthy humans gain weight, I can't help you.

If you don't believe resistance training stimulates hypertrophy, I can't help you.

If you need to read any of the hundreds of studies supporting these well-established facts - although I doubt they'd help you - Google Scholar is your friend. Search for "hypertrophy", "resistance training" "weight gain", "caloric surplus", etc. You'll get there eventually.

Quote: (08-28-2016 06:24 PM)RichieP Wrote:  

If you don't believe eating a large caloric surplus makes healthy humans gain weight, I can't help you.

Fat gain. Or heat loss.

If you don't believe resistance training stimulates hypertrophy, I can't help you.

Non-responders.

If you need to read any of the hundreds of studies supporting these well-established facts - although I doubt they'd help you - Google Scholar is your friend.

Speak for yourself. It certainly isn't your friend.

Quote: (08-27-2016 07:08 PM)Albatross Wrote:  

Some =/= All

You understand this distinction, right? Or no?

People ITT throwing out "Oh this IDIOT, he should have done ABC routine or XYZ routine!!!", but again you have NO proof that any routine GUARANTEES good gains for ALL

I don't know why you're mad about your lack of results. You wanted the "4 hour body", you got it.

Fact is, if you're doing a routine and you don't see any changes to your strength or size after two months, you should do something else.

You should also see how much you are eating and if you're not gaining any weight, you eat more. Lifting weights won't magically by itself turn you into a behemoth, you have to eat like one too.

One of the things I started doing to gain weight was to eat large, simple meals out of bigger dishes.

Your tired premise revolves around this idea of:

yeah well not ALL routines are going to deliver the same results to everyone who does them!

I respond with: Yeah, and water is wet, what is your point? If you want someone to lift the weight for you then go on youtube and watch training videos and quit complaining that you're not big enough.

You might as well complain that not everyone who tries really hard gets to succeed. Such is life. Maybe you think you're trying harder than you really are.

If you're going to whine and complain about being a hard gainer and how hard it is for you, you might as well go ahead and do steroids and get on with your life.

In the meantime, people who actually want to get somewhere will err on the side of spending more than eight minutes in the gym so we can perform heavy compound exercises that many folks find unpleasant.

I dug through the blog and found this.

The guy claims to be eating 2300 calories a day at a bodyweight of 137 pounds. That's on the lower end of a bulk. Kudos to him for actually counting calories, but he should have just straight up ate an extra meal a day.

Also this is what the "workouts" look like.

Quote:Quote:

Workout A

Yates row x 7 (page 211)
Shoulder-width barbell overhead press x 7 (page 201)
(optional) Abdominal exercises
Myotatic crunch x 10 (page 176)
Cat vomit x 10 (page 178)

Workout B

Slight incline bench press with shoulder-width grip x 7 (page 200)
note 1-second pause at bottom
Squat x 10 (page 201) [dumbbell squat, for those without a power rack]
(optional) Kettlebell swings x 50 (page 165) [T-handle video and info]
Stationary bike x 3 min.

If I am not mistaken, that is 2 decent exercises per workout for one single set of 7 to 10 reps. Yeah, no wonder this guy isn't getting anywhere. Swings are even optional. I think Pavel's "Power to the People" has more volume than this and it's not even a mass building program.

This routine might have worked if the guy trained in a commercial gym and could add actual resistance, but no, as far as I can tell he's derping around with a 50 lb dumbbell in his apartment. As much as I bash on it, Convict Conditioning or that Nassim Taleb "one rep max on the deadlift once a week" program would be better than what this guy is doing because those two involve progressive overload.

50 lbs on squats, presses, and rows isn't jack shit. It's an Olympic bar with 2 little 2.5 lb plates on the end.

Albatross. First things first. You're an asshole that is being disrespectful to members that have been here for a while.

Barring any rare conditions or diseases, caloric surplus, correct micros and workout plan for YOU will yield results. It will take experimentation, It won't be easy, it will take years. Stop being so defeatist, actually try to solve your issue and see if you have what it takes.

Guys like Albatross degrade this forum. You don't have to agree with anyone but have some respect. "I want proof that anyone can put on muscle guaranteed" and I want proof that we don't live in a simulation and until I get it, the observable laws of nature do not apply. Barring disabling genetic defects or lack of 46 chromosomes, the aforementioned workout advice yields results. Your hamster is running at insane speeds if you're using gimmicky explanations like +1000cal surplus are not effective because of heat loss and some people are non-responders to hypertrophy training. This demand that fitness advice is only valid when it includes every human data point is comical.

People are being disrespectful to me TBH. Calling me a troll or condescending me or saying I'm the guy in the OP (lmfao thank god no) for simply disagreeing with them and questioning their dogma. Tell me, how is it ever possible to go against consensus without arousing the mob? This response is not surprising.

Anyway, I'm not gonna keep responding back and forth, and I will rest on what I have said. My overall point starts with this, that in this world there is wide innate variation. There are men who are 7 feet tall and there are men who are 5 foot flat toddler sized. There are men with 10 inch dicks and there are men with 1 inch micrococks. There are men with minds that can design space ships and there are men who can barely space their own name. This is a fact, and it only follows that such similar variety exists respecting muscularity and athletic potential. And when it comes to these things, the guy in the OP just lost. While I'm sure he's intelligent, hardworking, a good person and so on, when it comes to below the neck, he is complete genetic trash. It like his body sent out a signal "Do not grow!". He did more or less everything right - counted macros, ate clean, regimented program, enough sleep, blood work, 20 lb bulk, slow careful cut - and came out looking like absolute unchanged shit.

The hints of his biological fail are apparent from the beginning and throughout - according to his body scans he carries less than LBM than the AVERAGE 5'6"+ WOMAN WHO DOESN'T EVEN LIFT. Let that sink in. So it's OVER. Discussion closed. There are people who are simply not meant to adapt to training and be muscled no matter what they do and he is one of them. Studies have shown this clearly, which I can provide. Meanwhile despite repeated requests no one yet has proven what is supposed to be the taken for granted, obvious foundation of the fitness sphere, which is that good gains follow for ALL with 'proper' programming.

There aren't any "scientific studies" that prove how gravity works so I guess you better chain yourself to the floor in your basement just in case.

We don't have to prove how it works or why it works, only that it works.

If you eat more food, you will gain weight.

If you lift weights while eating more food, you will build muscle. How much muscle absolutely depends on your genetics, sure, but you can't tell me that this guy trained with any real intensity or ate all that much and then go on to say that it was only his genetics holding him back.

He didn't train with anything heavier than 50 lbs.

He didn't eat more than 2300 calories a day.

He's 37 years old.

He didn't do more than one set of any kind of real exercise, no more than two real exercises per workout and he did not more than 10 reps.

Yeah, I can do one set of seven pushups twice a week, but I won't look any different in two years. If I cycled weight and went up three pounds a workout and then dropped intensity when it got too heavy, then I would be getting somewhere, albeit slowly.

I skimmed through his blog. I did not see any kind of workout tracking, no form of progressive overload, nothing. He listed his equipment (a weight bench, a 50lb dumbbell, a 100 lb weight vest that he didn't use).

The defence mechanisms are strong!

He did gain weight - a full 20 lbs at one point.

He did progress - he went from rowing the empty bar to 165 lbs for reps.

He even did make a full 10 lb recomp.

But none of it mattered because his he did it to a frame that is more gracile than that of a post menopausal female who can't even pick up a dumbbell.

Quote:Quote:

He did more or less everything right - counted macros, ate clean, regimented program, enough sleep, blood work, 20 lb bulk, slow careful cut - and came out looking like absolute unchanged shit.

Not true - he did a terrible program and didn't eat enough. "Cutting" at circa 150lbs. bodyweight? Absurd.

Quote: (08-28-2016 09:59 PM)Albatross Wrote:  

The defence mechanisms are strong!

He did gain weight - a full 20 lbs at one point.

He did progress - he went from rowing the empty bar to 165 lbs for reps.

He even did make a full 10 lb recomp.

But none of it mattered because his he did it to a frame that is more gracile than that of a post menopausal female who can't even pick up a dumbbell.

How does that not prove that, even though he doesn't have "monster genetics" or even a standard program that he did not progress?

He put in the bare minimum lifting wise and burned fat and gained muscle and got stronger.

That he had any results at all is a testament to how effective it is for men to lift weights. This case proves my point more than it proves yours.

I've read the studies concerning how many sets vs reps vs frequency. Fact is, one set to failure is the bare minimum.

If you get 60% of the results with one set to failure, you get 80% of the results with two sets to failure, 90% with three sets, you get the idea.

None of that shit matters if you don't eat enough.

The program is dumb, but it's not what really limited him.

Quote: (08-28-2016 04:39 PM)zatara Wrote:  

Like I said at the bottom of the last page, your gain of 3KG in 5 months (7.2KG on a yearly basis) is actually a quite solid muscle gain rate. If you'd stuck with your program and diet for say, a period of 2 or 3 years, you would have ended up 14-20KG heavier. That would have made a huge difference to your life. Unfortunately 5 months is not a "sustained and honest crack at gaining weight", the process is much longer and slower for those of us who aren't genetically gifted (or on steroids).

Totally agree here. If you've gained 3 kilos of skeletal muscle in 5 months, that's great. 3 kilos of real muscle is a major difference in an average guy's physique. The only way you change from skinny to big in 2-3 years is steroids, and lots of them, and/or freak genetics.

The media and fitness industry just keeps on pumping out photoshopped pictures of genetically gifted bodybuilders on extreme steroids like trenbolone in addition to the bread and butter steroids like test and deca, and are using insulin and growth hormones to max out the gains even more, and some also do synthol to get even bigger. Some do it with no skill so it's obvious, others do it with more skill so it's not that easy to see (Rich Piana), and others do it so well it can't be detected even by their friends.

Adding 20 kilos of lean mass to your frame would completely change your body type. Doing it in just a few years would be a great achivement. Adding another 10-20 kilos would really push to boundaries of natural muscle development in reasonably gifted individuals and require top quality training. The only reason why it doesn't appear so is the people you see in the media are using steroids, and so are most of the guys who get great gains in gyms.

Quote: (08-28-2016 12:57 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Lifting to failure won't mean much if it's the same weight every time.

If you're lifting the same weights every time, you're not lifting to failure, unless you're increasing the reps or overtrained/sick. If you're increasing the reps, fine, then you're exposing your muscle to progressive overload. Standard resistance training says it's usually preferable to keep the number of reps low, but even sets with up to 30-40 reps have been documented to give great gains in hypertrophy and strength. If you're meeting the wall at the same place every workout because you're overtrained/sick, it's a problem you need to solve.

Quote: (08-29-2016 04:18 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

If you've gained 3 kilos of skeletal muscle in 5 months, that's great.

Not really. There is an opportunity cost in investing 50%+ of your surplus willpower and bodily stamina into an enterprise that is paying off at that kind of rate. But when you're at war with your own body every meal time and you leave the gym barely able to open the door after doing half the volume everyone else does, to go from "60% the size of a typical guy" to "65% the size of a typical guy", it's a forlorn exercise.

Foolish really, literally no chance in Australia you'd ever be considered "athletic" let alone "buff" against the typical guy, all you'd get is "hey man you're not quite as skinny as you used to be" from some friends. So why do it?

If it had only taken 25% surplus stamina, or the result had been going from 90% typical size to 101% typical size, that could be called be a reasonable course of action. Nothing special, but reasonable. Either a result that had a value greater than zero, or an effort that didn't materially dent your ability to pursue other enterprises.

To use an analogy: if you're a gifted musician, and 5'6", it is a stupid idea to train 8hrs everyday on a basketball court to go from a C- basket ball player to a C+. You'd focus on your music, because the world most rewards the outstanding, not the "not quite as bad as they used to be".

Phoenix you may have a medical condition. I'm ectomorphic and a hard gainer (which I think really means low-appetite person). I have absolutely changed how I look to the point you can definitely tell I lift weights when my shirt is off, however I am not big by any stretch of the imagination. It has taken 2 years to get to this point. However, I am on TRT and I do from time to time use SARMs, but most of the results have just come from consistent lifting weights (compound + some targeted). Nothing magical.

Quote: (08-29-2016 09:03 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Not really. There is an opportunity cost in investing 50%+ of your surplus willpower and bodily stamina into an enterprise that is paying off at that kind of rate. But when you're at war with your own body every meal time and you leave the gym barely able to open the door after doing half the volume everyone else does, to go from "60% the size of a typical guy" to "65% the size of a typical guy", it's a forlorn exercise.

Foolish really, literally no chance in Australia you'd ever be considered "athletic" let alone "buff" against the typical guy, all you'd get is "hey man you're not quite as skinny as you used to be" from some friends. So why do it?

If it had only taken 25% surplus stamina, or the result had been going from 90% typical size to 101% typical size, that could be called be a reasonable course of action. Nothing special, but reasonable. Either a result that had a value greater than zero, or an effort that didn't materially dent your ability to pursue other enterprises.

To use an analogy: if you're a gifted musician, and 5'6", it is a stupid idea to train 8hrs everyday on a basketball court to go from a C- basket ball player to a C+. You'd focus on your music, because the world most rewards the outstanding, not the "not quite as bad as they used to be".

If 4 hours a week of training (a reasonable training regime) is "50%+ of your surplus willpower and bodily stamina " then you might have other biological problems. How many hours a week do you spend watching tv? How many hours on the internet? I've worked 65 hour weeks before and still fit-in gym time, because it really just doesn't need to be that time consuming.

The average standard is higher in Australia yes, but that just means you need to work harder if you want to stand-out. Or move to a different country. At the end of the day weightlifting isn't about comparing yourself to other men, though. The main, core benefit is in the hormonal changes and physical fitness it brings to yourself. Those are benefits for life.

(though I'll also never get tired of a woman's shocked/aroused gasp when they see you topless for the first time)

Its just a rather defeatist attitude to have worked out for 5 months, decided you'd "given it your all", and given up entirely on the idea of weightlifting.

Your musician/basketball analogy doesn't work because weightlifting is something anyone can be good at. And because it only takes up a tiny proportion of someone's life. Its approx 4 hours a week, not 8 hours a day. Your 5ft 6 tall musician should absolutely be playing 4 hours of basketball a week - it would keep him fit, healthy and provide a different hobby in addition to his music.

I don't understand your point. You're basically saying

"I busted my ass and tried really really hard for five months and I only have 7 pounds of muscle to show for it".

That's pretty good progress, to be honest.

You say to do something else to maximize another strength.

I can agree on this, but the fact is is that you weren't spending 8 hours a day lifting weights and you're not competing, you were spending a couple hours a week lifting weights.

If it takes too much out of you, go to the gym twice a week instead. During periods of high stress or shitty sleep, this is what I do.

You can still maximize another strength, you're only losing 2 hours a week tops.

I started my "lifting career" a skinny fat faggot at the age of 20. I weighed 145 lbs at six foot nothing. In all likelihood, I was weaker than the 37 year old guy in the OP. Now I'm at 200 lbs and I still have a ways to go.

There are diminishing returns with everything, but for the amount of time you spend versus what you get out of it, lifting weights is very hard to beat.

A few hours a week is nothing. Barring all that, just get on the juice.

Quote: (08-29-2016 09:45 AM)Menace Wrote:  

you may have a medical condition.

Another way of saying "bad genes" though, and unfortunately medicine really isn't progressing particularly fast. Kids still get acne, men still go bald, the worst diseases are still treated with knives and poison. Where is the easy to take drug which stops fatties being hungry? Where is the easy to take drug that makes skinny guys ravenous and invigorates their weak digestive systems? I'm not even the worst, I know a guy who looks like a pencil -- there is zero chance he's ever not going to look skinny without drug assistance.

Basically the only available-by-prescription candidates are: megestrol acetate, which destroys your testosterone levels (gain fat but not muscle); cyproheptadine, which knocks you out stronger than any sleeping pill ever did; and THC, with its well-known side-effect of getting stoned, and internationally tends to be illegal and expensive.

That said there are a few things in the research stages, "ghrelin mimetics" etc, and many can now be obtained as "research chemicals" from "labs". So they might be worth a look, for feeding to rats only of course.

Quote: (08-29-2016 09:49 AM)zatara Wrote:  

If 4 hours a week of training (a reasonable training regime) is "50%+ of your surplus willpower and bodily stamina " then you might have other biological problems. How many hours a week do you spend watching tv? How many hours on the internet? I've worked 65 hour weeks before and still fit-in gym time, because it really just doesn't need to be that time consuming.

The training was about 10pp, the other 40pp was force-feeding (which of course you have to ideally do 4+ times a day). Causes social issues when I can't eat with other people any more because it takes 30 minutes to get down a meal other guys finish in 10. Doing something mildly uncomfortable (actually I find it enjoyable) like gyming 4 times a week is in a different league to doing something quite unpleasant 4 times a day.

Quote: (08-29-2016 09:03 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote: (08-29-2016 04:18 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

If you've gained 3 kilos of skeletal muscle in 5 months, that's great.

Not really. There is an opportunity cost in investing 50%+ of your surplus willpower and bodily stamina into an enterprise that is paying off at that kind of rate. But when you're at war with your own body every meal time and you leave the gym barely able to open the door after doing half the volume everyone else does, to go from "60% the size of a typical guy" to "65% the size of a typical guy", it's a forlorn exercise.

My point here was you seemed to think 3 kilos of muscle in 5 months was little. Well, it's not. It's normal. And especially if you're only 60% of the size of a normal guy. That would suggest you have a small frame (lithe bones, small chest and general build), and increasing your muscle mass occurs in relation to your frame. So large frame, large gains, small frame small gains. And your frame, bone density and thickness will actually grow from resistance training, but that takes years, not 5 months.

Your problem seems to be the toll the exercise and eating takes on you. The normal reaction from resistance training is increased energy and well being from increased circulation, increased hormone levels etc. You seem to experience the opposite.

It's hard for me to pinpoint the exact cause, but maybe you need to start at a lower level of exertion. If you're having a hard time opening the door on your way out the gym, chances are you're working out too hard. But with time, your nervous system and body develops. Or it might just a system shock you'll overcome because you're small at the moment.

As for food, I eat a lot of calorie and protein rich food I really enjoy. In fact, eating a lot of food that tastes good is one of the reasons I like to train. I've been on an all steak dinner diet lately, the gains are great and it feels great too :-) So did this premium ice cream. Fats add calories so you don't need to cram down (non-)food like shakes. Sauces contain fats, well marble beef contains fats, etc. Another bonus is, most calorie rich foods taste good naturally.

Also you need to realise most guys have problems eating enough and gaining when they're younger. But that doesn't mean it's a waste, even though it might seem so. What happens is you create a base by increasing the number of muscle cells, improving your nervous system and strengthening your frame. So when you're older, it's easy to blow up in size.

Quote: (08-29-2016 09:03 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

To use an analogy: if you're a gifted musician, and 5'6", it is a stupid idea to train 8hrs everyday on a basketball court to go from a C- basket ball player to a C+. You'd focus on your music, because the world most rewards the outstanding, not the "not quite as bad as they used to be".

I think a better analogy would be if you're just 5'4, would it make sense to put in a hella effort to become 5'6 the next year, knowing that you could be 5'8 the year after and end up over 6'? I mean you'd still be smaller than the average guy after one year, but atleast you'd be less small. Erm yeah, it would make sense. Being bigger to a certain extent is a major asset, and the longer out you are on the wrong side of the bell curve, the worse.

Quote: (08-29-2016 11:07 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

My point here was you seemed to think 3 kilos of muscle in 5 months was little. Well, it's not. It's normal. And especially if you're only 60% of the size of a normal guy. That would suggest you have a small frame (lithe bones, small chest and general build), and increasing your muscle mass occurs in relation to your frame. So large frame, large gains, small frame small gains. And your frame, bone density and thickness will actually grow from resistance training, but that takes years, not 5 months.

My frame is actually pretty good, bone lengths are decent, as far as skeletal system goes the "triangle" shape etc is good.
My point is that the workload to get those 3kg is so excessive, especially when it won't even let you approach the size of other guys who aren't doing any work at all, that investing it elsewhere (and indeed living in other countries as someone mentioned) is a wiser course of action unless you can apply drugs to the problem.

Quote: (08-29-2016 11:07 AM)Lechon Wrote:  

It's hard for me to pinpoint the exact cause, but maybe you need to start at a lower level of exertion. If you're having a hard time opening the door on your way out the gym, chances are you're working out too hard. But with time, your nervous system and body develops. Or it might just a system shock you'll overcome because you're small at the moment.

Prior to those 5 months I was working out at a more sporadic intensity, over the course of about a year. The primary reason the hardcore 5 months stopped was a total physical and mental burnout as a result of work stress ramping up on top of everything else.

This always goes the same way: if you do X, and you don't get results, everybody says "do more of X", if that doesn't work, "do less of X". However if you do X and you get results: "ok you're doing the right amount". It's not actually advice, it's just guessing. Especially when the actual reason is staring you right in the face: there is another factor Z at play.

It's hard for you to pinpoint the exact cause because it's barred from your mind: the idea that genetics can trump effort. We all want to put height in the 100% fixed/genetics camp, and everything else in the 100% willpower and action camp. While it's a noble sentiment, if it's simply not true in a certain case, there can be more to lose than gain. It is not 100% will power: it's is on a bell curve with genetics a very strong component.

I accept for most men, an inferior physique is their own doing. But to say that applies in my case is to say the heavyweight boxer defeated the featherweight due to superior technique -- something we might call a cult of willpower, that spirit can always prevail over the physical no matter what.

I also don't agree you should just do it anyway for fitness. For fitness I'll just swim, which I think is the best overall exercise you can do. The only real reason to specifically do weightlifting outside of sport, is to increase your musculature such that you become more attractive to women, and to a lesser extent more respected by men. If that is simply impossible to attain because you can't even approach the resting musculature of the average man, with massive levels of exertion which end up burning you out, it is clearly an uncompetitive decision in the game of life.

I think the main problem is that most guys in the thread will agree you didn't give it enough of a chance. If one of your friends started a new career, but after 5 months decided he was going to give up and never do it again what would you say it to him? If one of your friends started reading Roosh and gaming girls, but after 5 months gave up and said he was never going to do it again what would you say to him? Its just not long enough to have tried properly.

Its all well and good you blaming your genetics, but when you didn't stick with it long enough to give it a proper chance it just sounds like you're making excuses. Putting on 3KG in 5 months suggests your genetics aren't that bad, either - its more your mindset. You're the one who decided it was too slow progress, when its actually quite decent.

If the eating was 80% of the reason you gave up as you say it just speaks volumes to this. Most of us former skinny guys went through eating shitloads too, and it does suck. But a) your body adjusts gradually over time and b) you can easily find ways around it. You can eat normal social meals with other people, just supplement them with extremely calorie dense shakes and you'll get there. Full fat milk + peanut butter + protein powder can get you a high protein 1k+ kcal shake very easily. 3 of them a day on top of normal food and you're flying.

edit: to put this in reverse, what do you think of fat girls who blame their fatness on "genetics"? Because thats the exact same as small guys doing so with their skinniness. Do some people find it harder to gain/lose weight than others? Sure. But in 99.9% of cases its entirely within both fat girls, and skinny guys, control to change this situation if they work hard enough - but they're happier settling for the lazy "bad genetics" excuse.

edit2: I do also hope you'll take myself and the others posts' as constructive criticism rather than attacks (thats how my posts are intended anyhow) and maybe try and reconsider giving weightlifting another proper attempt.

Quote: (08-29-2016 11:54 AM)zatara Wrote:  

You can eat normal social meals with other people, just supplement them with extremely calorie dense shakes and you'll get there. Full fat milk + peanut butter + protein powder can get you a high protein 1k+ kcal shake very easily. 3 of them a day on top of normal food and you're flying.

Yes yes, all that was done. GOMAD was done. Shakes twice as dense as that recipe was done. The super nutrition-dense liquid stuff hospitals feed to decrepit people was done (on top of other meals). To reiterate: the 5 months ended primarily due to a total physical/mental burnout, such that it was only a fluke of temporary market conditions and some other factors that I didn't end up getting fired.

To follow your other analogy, if he did those 2 things hardcore for 5 months, and everyone else was promoted except him; or all his non-gaming friends got laid except him, yes I would say give up. I wouldn't say give up on everything, I'd say "try something else".

Everything has a cost. You wouldn't get a microwave if it cost 50% of your income every month. To condense my point: some men, albeit very few, should not weight lift as part of their self-improvement, but should do something else.

And to address the edits:
You are simply not listening to what I'm saying. You're trying to narrow this debate to "anyone can change their body". I am not debating that fact, I am debating that it is always worth it; return on investment etc.

On the "proper attempt" I assume you mean sustained at the same previous level over 2 years: simply can't be done because I need that mass of time and energy for other important projects I'm working on. I would be in a massively worse position in 2 years if made that decision.

Quote: (08-29-2016 11:34 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

It's hard for you to pinpoint the exact cause because it's barred from your mind: the idea that genetics can trump effort. We all want to put height in the 100% fixed/genetics camp, and everything else in the 100% willpower and action camp. While it's a noble sentiment, if it's simply not true in a certain case, there can be more to lose than gain. It is not 100% will power: it's is on a bell curve with genetics a very strong component.

Most people with any knowledge about resistance training will say genetics is a strong component. But what that means in practice is only a small percentage will end up with gobs and gobs of superfluous muscle. Even people on the wrong side of the bell curve can become pretty big and muscular compared to someone who does no training. And with the gains you posted I'm not even sure you're on the wrong side of the curve, you seem to be in the middle of it.

Quote: (08-29-2016 11:34 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I also don't agree you should just do it anyway for fitness. For fitness I'll just swim, which I think is the best overall exercise you can do. The only real reason to specifically do weightlifting outside of sport, is to increase your musculature such that you become more attractive to women, and to a lesser extent more respected by men. If that is simply impossible to attain because you can't even approach the resting musculature of the average man, with massive levels of exertion which end up burning you out, it is clearly an uncompetitive decision in the game of life.

For me it's about being who I want to be. I want to be a powerfull, explosive male with large shoulders and a big chest, and generally on the muscular side. I also like to eat lots of delicious gourmet food, and weight training is a good way to keep the pounds where they're supposed to be. It actually also makes the food taste better, because when your body needs to nutrients, it rewards you with a sensation of pleasure.

Other than that, having a good deal of muscle is your best bet for graceful ageing. Muscle mass predicts senility. Bone density is gold when you get old. Cardio exercise usually just diminishes muscle mass, even if it's good for a lot of other things. Also, excess muscle gives a better hormone balance. And, as you say, it tends to attract women and dominate men.

But yeah, if you think the gains come at a huge price for you and aren't worth it, don't do it. Your gains seem fine to me and everyone else in this thread except you, though.