[Tresdus]

(04-08-2013 07:45 PM)Hades Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 03:23 PM)Tresdus Wrote:  

Stop talking bullshit, you didn't put on 45lbs lean mass in 9 months unless you ran 2g test per week.
Maybe you put on 45lbs, but not everything is LBM
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-...ntial.html
And if you really did put on 45lbs LBM in 9 months without gear, you should consider becoming an IFBB pro because your genetics are literally the 1%.

I started at 6" 132lbs and am up to 176lbs in about a year, bench is almost at 225, didn't train legs because of an accident and 2 surgeries.

Most of your muscle bulk is in your legs and ass, so you could have put on more though I suppose you would have had to eat a bit more to compensate. I'm impressed you put on that much in a year with no lower body training.

I had a friend go from about 138 pounds at 6' 4" (basically looked like a holocaust survivor) to about 195 at 6' 4" inside of a school year, so ten months. Unrecognizable.

He started out at iggy pop body fat levels (6%?) and is still pretty lean, probably at or under 14% body fat.

These guys putting on massive gains in short order are generally very underweight to begin with. It's not some 245 pound bodybuilder going "ONE WEIRD TRICK TO PUT ON 60 POUNDS OF LEAN MUSCLE IN SIX MONTHS OMGWTFBBQ", just some comically underweight turd finally learning how to eat properly and lift heavy.
They're also usually young (under 25) and lean. Put them on a diet of heavy lifts and lots of food and they just explode to a healthy body weight or somewhat higher. Genetics is not always a big factor. Enough training volume and sufficient food can play a huge role.

Well, but compared to the other guy I didn't claim to put on 40lbs of LBM, because I didn't. I'm going to cut down to about 155lbs for the summer to get pretty lean.