Bulking goals
Replies
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
I know what you mean by stating this but its not entirely true.
I do dirty bulks mostly. I don't gain a ridiculous amount of fat because I'm a extremely active person. It might not be ideal for most, but it's relative to the individual and how many calories a person burns during the bulk and of course recovery for gaining muscle.
Your concept of a dirty bulk is wrong. As much as I hate the concept of dirty/clean bulk, a dirty bulk generally means you gained a lot of fat.
Or are you referring to your diet during your bulk incorporating "dirty" food?
As he replied above, he understands the concept of clean and dirty bulking very well. Dirty doesn't necessarily mean a lot of fat but does mean more than you would do in a smaller surplus. I really don't like the terms dirty and clean because they are really not good descriptors of the reality. You are either doing a lean bulk, minimizing fat gains, or a bulk where you gain more fat. I'm not sure what you would call the more fat gaining bulk in this case but, of course, there are a lot of ranges you can gain in fat to muscle ratios during a bulk so maybe a high and low fat bulk?
Also, the older and more experienced you are in lifting the more you will tend to a higher fat ratio in your bulks anyway.
My interpretation of "dirt bulk" is obviously slightly different. As you correctly stated though, there is no quantifiable measure of how clean/dirty a bulk is.
I would add though, consuming 5-10k calories daily does not sound correct unless you are 300+ lbs. For reference I am 6'3" and 240lbs @ 16% and maintain around 3000cals.
I am 6'3" 212lbs 12%bf at 47 years old and maintain in 4200-4500 range. I'm no where close to 300lbs
.
I'm retired, but like I said I'm extremely active which burns a lot of calories. Not to beat a dead horse, but this is why I mentioned as did David, not all dirty bulks mean extreme fat that takes forever to lose.
Example I catch double headers in the summertime for baseball. That activity for seven hours alone burns crazy numbers.
When did you retire? I hope it was because you wanted to and not medical reasons. Keep up the excellent work!
Got first signs of kidney failure little over a year ago. Oncologist was hoping it scar tissue from radiation, but it's pointing to RA is attacking them.
No worries, doing what I want & life is good. Thanks David, you too sir.
1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
I know what you mean by stating this but its not entirely true.
I do dirty bulks mostly. I don't gain a ridiculous amount of fat because I'm a extremely active person. It might not be ideal for most, but it's relative to the individual and how many calories a person burns during the bulk and of course recovery for gaining muscle.
Your concept of a dirty bulk is wrong. As much as I hate the concept of dirty/clean bulk, a dirty bulk generally means you gained a lot of fat.
Or are you referring to your diet during your bulk incorporating "dirty" food?
As he replied above, he understands the concept of clean and dirty bulking very well. Dirty doesn't necessarily mean a lot of fat but does mean more than you would do in a smaller surplus. I really don't like the terms dirty and clean because they are really not good descriptors of the reality. You are either doing a lean bulk, minimizing fat gains, or a bulk where you gain more fat. I'm not sure what you would call the more fat gaining bulk in this case but, of course, there are a lot of ranges you can gain in fat to muscle ratios during a bulk so maybe a high and low fat bulk?
Also, the older and more experienced you are in lifting the more you will tend to a higher fat ratio in your bulks anyway.
My interpretation of "dirt bulk" is obviously slightly different. As you correctly stated though, there is no quantifiable measure of how clean/dirty a bulk is.
I would add though, consuming 5-10k calories daily does not sound correct unless you are 300+ lbs. For reference I am 6'3" and 240lbs @ 16% and maintain around 3000cals.
For most cases you would be right but Lanny works heavy construction so he does have far higher requirements than most.
Interesting. Still sounds a bit off to me.
It depends, I can maintain around 3200 at only 160lbs when I'm at my most active and I know people that maintain in the 4K to 5K range easily due to activity and size. When you are on your feet for 10+ hours a day you can really pound out the NEAT calories! http://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/march-2005/burning-calories-on-the-job/
As an aside, when I was in training in the military I could easily consume 6K a day and lose around a pound a day or 3 pounds when water loss was added on top.
Hell, i have a desk job at 175 lbs and maintain at 3k and that is only with 5 to 6 hours of exercise a week.
My TDEE must be extremely low for my LBM then
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
I know what you mean by stating this but its not entirely true.
I do dirty bulks mostly. I don't gain a ridiculous amount of fat because I'm a extremely active person. It might not be ideal for most, but it's relative to the individual and how many calories a person burns during the bulk and of course recovery for gaining muscle.
Your concept of a dirty bulk is wrong. As much as I hate the concept of dirty/clean bulk, a dirty bulk generally means you gained a lot of fat.
Or are you referring to your diet during your bulk incorporating "dirty" food?
As he replied above, he understands the concept of clean and dirty bulking very well. Dirty doesn't necessarily mean a lot of fat but does mean more than you would do in a smaller surplus. I really don't like the terms dirty and clean because they are really not good descriptors of the reality. You are either doing a lean bulk, minimizing fat gains, or a bulk where you gain more fat. I'm not sure what you would call the more fat gaining bulk in this case but, of course, there are a lot of ranges you can gain in fat to muscle ratios during a bulk so maybe a high and low fat bulk?
Also, the older and more experienced you are in lifting the more you will tend to a higher fat ratio in your bulks anyway.
My interpretation of "dirt bulk" is obviously slightly different. As you correctly stated though, there is no quantifiable measure of how clean/dirty a bulk is.
I would add though, consuming 5-10k calories daily does not sound correct unless you are 300+ lbs. For reference I am 6'3" and 240lbs @ 16% and maintain around 3000cals.
For most cases you would be right but Lanny works heavy construction so he does have far higher requirements than most.
Interesting. Still sounds a bit off to me.
It depends, I can maintain around 3200 at only 160lbs when I'm at my most active and I know people that maintain in the 4K to 5K range easily due to activity and size. When you are on your feet for 10+ hours a day you can really pound out the NEAT calories! http://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/march-2005/burning-calories-on-the-job/
As an aside, when I was in training in the military I could easily consume 6K a day and lose around a pound a day or 3 pounds when water loss was added on top.
Hell, i have a desk job at 175 lbs and maintain at 3k and that is only with 5 to 6 hours of exercise a week.
You work in Hell? We must be in the same company.
1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
I know what you mean by stating this but its not entirely true.
I do dirty bulks mostly. I don't gain a ridiculous amount of fat because I'm a extremely active person. It might not be ideal for most, but it's relative to the individual and how many calories a person burns during the bulk and of course recovery for gaining muscle.
Your concept of a dirty bulk is wrong. As much as I hate the concept of dirty/clean bulk, a dirty bulk generally means you gained a lot of fat.
Or are you referring to your diet during your bulk incorporating "dirty" food?
As he replied above, he understands the concept of clean and dirty bulking very well. Dirty doesn't necessarily mean a lot of fat but does mean more than you would do in a smaller surplus. I really don't like the terms dirty and clean because they are really not good descriptors of the reality. You are either doing a lean bulk, minimizing fat gains, or a bulk where you gain more fat. I'm not sure what you would call the more fat gaining bulk in this case but, of course, there are a lot of ranges you can gain in fat to muscle ratios during a bulk so maybe a high and low fat bulk?
Also, the older and more experienced you are in lifting the more you will tend to a higher fat ratio in your bulks anyway.
My interpretation of "dirt bulk" is obviously slightly different. As you correctly stated though, there is no quantifiable measure of how clean/dirty a bulk is.
I would add though, consuming 5-10k calories daily does not sound correct unless you are 300+ lbs. For reference I am 6'3" and 240lbs @ 16% and maintain around 3000cals.
For most cases you would be right but Lanny works heavy construction so he does have far higher requirements than most.
Interesting. Still sounds a bit off to me.
It depends, I can maintain around 3200 at only 160lbs when I'm at my most active and I know people that maintain in the 4K to 5K range easily due to activity and size. When you are on your feet for 10+ hours a day you can really pound out the NEAT calories! http://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/march-2005/burning-calories-on-the-job/
As an aside, when I was in training in the military I could easily consume 6K a day and lose around a pound a day or 3 pounds when water loss was added on top.
Hell, i have a desk job at 175 lbs and maintain at 3k and that is only with 5 to 6 hours of exercise a week.
My TDEE must be extremely low for my LBM then
That's what I was thinking. You should probably be around 3600 to 4000 maintenance at 240 but as always YMMV.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
I know what you mean by stating this but its not entirely true.
I do dirty bulks mostly. I don't gain a ridiculous amount of fat because I'm a extremely active person. It might not be ideal for most, but it's relative to the individual and how many calories a person burns during the bulk and of course recovery for gaining muscle.
Your concept of a dirty bulk is wrong. As much as I hate the concept of dirty/clean bulk, a dirty bulk generally means you gained a lot of fat.
Or are you referring to your diet during your bulk incorporating "dirty" food?
As he replied above, he understands the concept of clean and dirty bulking very well. Dirty doesn't necessarily mean a lot of fat but does mean more than you would do in a smaller surplus. I really don't like the terms dirty and clean because they are really not good descriptors of the reality. You are either doing a lean bulk, minimizing fat gains, or a bulk where you gain more fat. I'm not sure what you would call the more fat gaining bulk in this case but, of course, there are a lot of ranges you can gain in fat to muscle ratios during a bulk so maybe a high and low fat bulk?
Also, the older and more experienced you are in lifting the more you will tend to a higher fat ratio in your bulks anyway.
My interpretation of "dirt bulk" is obviously slightly different. As you correctly stated though, there is no quantifiable measure of how clean/dirty a bulk is.
I would add though, consuming 5-10k calories daily does not sound correct unless you are 300+ lbs. For reference I am 6'3" and 240lbs @ 16% and maintain around 3000cals.
For most cases you would be right but Lanny works heavy construction so he does have far higher requirements than most.
Interesting. Still sounds a bit off to me.
It depends, I can maintain around 3200 at only 160lbs when I'm at my most active and I know people that maintain in the 4K to 5K range easily due to activity and size. When you are on your feet for 10+ hours a day you can really pound out the NEAT calories! http://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/march-2005/burning-calories-on-the-job/
As an aside, when I was in training in the military I could easily consume 6K a day and lose around a pound a day or 3 pounds when water loss was added on top.
Hell, i have a desk job at 175 lbs and maintain at 3k and that is only with 5 to 6 hours of exercise a week.
My TDEE must be extremely low for my LBM then
That's what I was thinking. You should probably be around 3600 to 4000 maintenance at 240 but as always YMMV.
This has got me seriously thinking. I'm 240 @ 16% (ish), walk 10k steps a day and lift 5 times a week yet find my maintenance is around 3k. Interesting!0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
I know what you mean by stating this but its not entirely true.
I do dirty bulks mostly. I don't gain a ridiculous amount of fat because I'm a extremely active person. It might not be ideal for most, but it's relative to the individual and how many calories a person burns during the bulk and of course recovery for gaining muscle.
Your concept of a dirty bulk is wrong. As much as I hate the concept of dirty/clean bulk, a dirty bulk generally means you gained a lot of fat.
Or are you referring to your diet during your bulk incorporating "dirty" food?
As he replied above, he understands the concept of clean and dirty bulking very well. Dirty doesn't necessarily mean a lot of fat but does mean more than you would do in a smaller surplus. I really don't like the terms dirty and clean because they are really not good descriptors of the reality. You are either doing a lean bulk, minimizing fat gains, or a bulk where you gain more fat. I'm not sure what you would call the more fat gaining bulk in this case but, of course, there are a lot of ranges you can gain in fat to muscle ratios during a bulk so maybe a high and low fat bulk?
Also, the older and more experienced you are in lifting the more you will tend to a higher fat ratio in your bulks anyway.
My interpretation of "dirt bulk" is obviously slightly different. As you correctly stated though, there is no quantifiable measure of how clean/dirty a bulk is.
I would add though, consuming 5-10k calories daily does not sound correct unless you are 300+ lbs. For reference I am 6'3" and 240lbs @ 16% and maintain around 3000cals.
For most cases you would be right but Lanny works heavy construction so he does have far higher requirements than most.
Interesting. Still sounds a bit off to me.
It depends, I can maintain around 3200 at only 160lbs when I'm at my most active and I know people that maintain in the 4K to 5K range easily due to activity and size. When you are on your feet for 10+ hours a day you can really pound out the NEAT calories! http://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/march-2005/burning-calories-on-the-job/
As an aside, when I was in training in the military I could easily consume 6K a day and lose around a pound a day or 3 pounds when water loss was added on top.
Hell, i have a desk job at 175 lbs and maintain at 3k and that is only with 5 to 6 hours of exercise a week.
My TDEE must be extremely low for my LBM then
That's what I was thinking. You should probably be around 3600 to 4000 maintenance at 240 but as always YMMV.
This has got me seriously thinking. I'm 240 @ 16% (ish), walk 10k steps a day and lift 5 times a week yet find my maintenance is around 3k. Interesting!
You might want to get your metabolism measured just to see how accurate your logging is. If your metabolism is that much below expected there might be an issue that needs to be addressed.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
I know what you mean by stating this but its not entirely true.
I do dirty bulks mostly. I don't gain a ridiculous amount of fat because I'm a extremely active person. It might not be ideal for most, but it's relative to the individual and how many calories a person burns during the bulk and of course recovery for gaining muscle.
Your concept of a dirty bulk is wrong. As much as I hate the concept of dirty/clean bulk, a dirty bulk generally means you gained a lot of fat.
Or are you referring to your diet during your bulk incorporating "dirty" food?
As he replied above, he understands the concept of clean and dirty bulking very well. Dirty doesn't necessarily mean a lot of fat but does mean more than you would do in a smaller surplus. I really don't like the terms dirty and clean because they are really not good descriptors of the reality. You are either doing a lean bulk, minimizing fat gains, or a bulk where you gain more fat. I'm not sure what you would call the more fat gaining bulk in this case but, of course, there are a lot of ranges you can gain in fat to muscle ratios during a bulk so maybe a high and low fat bulk?
Also, the older and more experienced you are in lifting the more you will tend to a higher fat ratio in your bulks anyway.
My interpretation of "dirt bulk" is obviously slightly different. As you correctly stated though, there is no quantifiable measure of how clean/dirty a bulk is.
I would add though, consuming 5-10k calories daily does not sound correct unless you are 300+ lbs. For reference I am 6'3" and 240lbs @ 16% and maintain around 3000cals.
For most cases you would be right but Lanny works heavy construction so he does have far higher requirements than most.
Interesting. Still sounds a bit off to me.
It depends, I can maintain around 3200 at only 160lbs when I'm at my most active and I know people that maintain in the 4K to 5K range easily due to activity and size. When you are on your feet for 10+ hours a day you can really pound out the NEAT calories! http://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm/lifelines/march-2005/burning-calories-on-the-job/
As an aside, when I was in training in the military I could easily consume 6K a day and lose around a pound a day or 3 pounds when water loss was added on top.
Hell, i have a desk job at 175 lbs and maintain at 3k and that is only with 5 to 6 hours of exercise a week.
My TDEE must be extremely low for my LBM then
That's what I was thinking. You should probably be around 3600 to 4000 maintenance at 240 but as always YMMV.
This has got me seriously thinking. I'm 240 @ 16% (ish), walk 10k steps a day and lift 5 times a week yet find my maintenance is around 3k. Interesting!
You might want to get your metabolism measured just to see how accurate your logging is. If your metabolism is that much below expected there might be an issue that needs to be addressed.
Came in to give my opinion, leave questioning my own body haha Thanks for the advice man!
1 -
Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Not sure if you realize it but your ranges actually put you at gaining between 7 to 14 lbs of muscle if you take your lowest gain stats (155@11% to 160@10% vs 152@13% to 163@10%), which is a huge difference. If we take a 10lb gain as being reasonable, and assume you are not going to gain the max anymore due to age and training experience, I would estimate you could gain about 1/4 to 1/3 of a pound per week on a solid bulk of 1lb per week gain. If we go for the optimistic 1/3 then it would take you 3 weeks to gain a pound of muscle but about will gain 2 pounds of fat and you will need 30 weeks to gain 10lbs. This will mean you will be up 30lbs so 185lbs @ 20% BF but when you start to cut you'll lose some muscle as well.
So that's over 6 months and you still won't get to where you really want to be, and that's probably if everything is hitting on all cylinders. I would say you will have to do two or three bulk/cut cycles to get to where you want and probably about a year.
OKay so you seemed very informative, however I'm a little confused on reading your post. So all in all you're saying I need to do 2-3 week bulk and cutting cycles? How does that even work, that just seems to short of amount of time to see any changes in either phase, no?
I think he is suggestion that you should do a few cycles to gain the amount of mass that you want. Although, the amount of muscle gained per week is a bit questionable. If this is your first time bulk, then I don't see it being unreasonable to gain 1/2lb per week, considering adequate nutrition and progressive training.
It's not really my first bulk per say. I mean I have started putting on weight and lifting, etc..for almost 2 years, part of that 2 years was interrupted and I stopped, but the last year I've been super consistent with everything. I decided to cut this past summer, someone at the gym convinced me to and I looked good but felt too small, so I decided to start bulking again the right way.
0 -
Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
I'd be curious to see how that looks since we're similar height. Do you feel like you're starting to look too heavy for your liking? I thnk you should monitor your bf % only because eventually after you reach your bulking point you're going to want to show the muscles you've gained and you'll need to know how much weight you need to lose in order to have less than 10% body fat which is when you really start seeing muscularity, below 10 is when the vascularity supposedly shows through too. I've never been less than 10%, and at that point I was around 149-150 lbs.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
+1 dirty bulk is only really recommended for those who have a good drug cycle for both anabolic and cutting phases. As mentioned above a few times, when you go above a certain BF% you start gaining more fat and less muscle and that trend continues as you go up.
Even with "supplements" I don't think it is recommended. However that is for different reasons!
LOL no I wouldn't take the fat cutters, they are far worse than the anabolic agents!
How are the fat cutters worse than anabolic agents?0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
+1 dirty bulk is only really recommended for those who have a good drug cycle for both anabolic and cutting phases. As mentioned above a few times, when you go above a certain BF% you start gaining more fat and less muscle and that trend continues as you go up.
Even with "supplements" I don't think it is recommended. However that is for different reasons!
LOL no I wouldn't take the fat cutters, they are far worse than the anabolic agents!
How are the fat cutters worse than anabolic agents?
I don't believe that fat cutters or anabolic agents are the correct terms for anything. I believe he was referring to DNP which is effective but horrendous.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
+1 dirty bulk is only really recommended for those who have a good drug cycle for both anabolic and cutting phases. As mentioned above a few times, when you go above a certain BF% you start gaining more fat and less muscle and that trend continues as you go up.
Even with "supplements" I don't think it is recommended. However that is for different reasons!
LOL no I wouldn't take the fat cutters, they are far worse than the anabolic agents!
How are the fat cutters worse than anabolic agents?
I don't believe that fat cutters or anabolic agents are the correct terms for anything. I believe he was referring to DNP which is effective but horrendous.
I wasn't trying to be accurate in terminology, not that most people use the correct terms but I digress, DNP is one of many weight loss chemicals, and obviously the worst, but not the only one that is very dangerous. Anabolic steroids and human growth hormone are rather benign compared to many of the weight loss products. Insulin is used both for weight loss and as an anabolic compound and is probably second to DNP as far as health risks but most bodybuilders also use various techniques such as sodium and potassium loading and other strong diuretics to get ready for competition and give them that shrink wrapped look. These tend to play havoc on the internal organs and likely a main contributor to the premature deaths of so many bodybuilders.
On a side note, IGF-1 is the most likely reason for the bubble gut so many top bodybuilders now have and is also something that will promote the growth of cancer cells as well. Inulin and IGF-1 are pretty dangerous drugs to be playing with.
Oh, and if you want to see how to treat your body like a pharmaceutical experiment take a trip to some of the PED forms around the net. It's just mind numbing the amount of drugs these people take from anabolic steroids, fat burners, diuretics, SARMS, SERMS, peptides, herbal compounds and a few other things. It's rather scary so see the risks that people are willing to take with their long-term health for short-term aesthetics and strength gains.2 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
+1 dirty bulk is only really recommended for those who have a good drug cycle for both anabolic and cutting phases. As mentioned above a few times, when you go above a certain BF% you start gaining more fat and less muscle and that trend continues as you go up.
Even with "supplements" I don't think it is recommended. However that is for different reasons!
LOL no I wouldn't take the fat cutters, they are far worse than the anabolic agents!
How are the fat cutters worse than anabolic agents?
I don't believe that fat cutters or anabolic agents are the correct terms for anything. I believe he was referring to DNP which is effective but horrendous.
I wasn't trying to be accurate in terminology, not that most people use the correct terms but I digress, DNP is one of many weight loss chemicals, and obviously the worst, but not the only one that is very dangerous. Anabolic steroids and human growth hormone are rather benign compared to many of the weight loss products. Insulin is used both for weight loss and as an anabolic compound and is probably second to DNP as far as health risks but most bodybuilders also use various techniques such as sodium and potassium loading and other strong diuretics to get ready for competition and give them that shrink wrapped look. These tend to play havoc on the internal organs and likely a main contributor to the premature deaths of so many bodybuilders.
On a side note, IGF-1 is the most likely reason for the bubble gut so many top bodybuilders now have and is also something that will promote the growth of cancer cells as well. Inulin and IGF-1 are pretty dangerous drugs to be playing with.
Oh, and if you want to see how to treat your body like a pharmaceutical experiment take a trip to some of the PED forms around the net. It's just mind numbing the amount of drugs these people take from anabolic steroids, fat burners, diuretics, SARMS, SERMS, peptides, herbal compounds and a few other things. It's rather scary so see the risks that people are willing to take with their long-term health for short-term aesthetics and strength gains.
Thanks for the info but I am fairly well versed in the area! Not that this is a discussion for this forum but you would have to be very stupid to die from DNP.0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
+1 dirty bulk is only really recommended for those who have a good drug cycle for both anabolic and cutting phases. As mentioned above a few times, when you go above a certain BF% you start gaining more fat and less muscle and that trend continues as you go up.
Even with "supplements" I don't think it is recommended. However that is for different reasons!
LOL no I wouldn't take the fat cutters, they are far worse than the anabolic agents!
How are the fat cutters worse than anabolic agents?
I don't believe that fat cutters or anabolic agents are the correct terms for anything. I believe he was referring to DNP which is effective but horrendous.
I wasn't trying to be accurate in terminology, not that most people use the correct terms but I digress, DNP is one of many weight loss chemicals, and obviously the worst, but not the only one that is very dangerous. Anabolic steroids and human growth hormone are rather benign compared to many of the weight loss products. Insulin is used both for weight loss and as an anabolic compound and is probably second to DNP as far as health risks but most bodybuilders also use various techniques such as sodium and potassium loading and other strong diuretics to get ready for competition and give them that shrink wrapped look. These tend to play havoc on the internal organs and likely a main contributor to the premature deaths of so many bodybuilders.
On a side note, IGF-1 is the most likely reason for the bubble gut so many top bodybuilders now have and is also something that will promote the growth of cancer cells as well. Inulin and IGF-1 are pretty dangerous drugs to be playing with.
Oh, and if you want to see how to treat your body like a pharmaceutical experiment take a trip to some of the PED forms around the net. It's just mind numbing the amount of drugs these people take from anabolic steroids, fat burners, diuretics, SARMS, SERMS, peptides, herbal compounds and a few other things. It's rather scary so see the risks that people are willing to take with their long-term health for short-term aesthetics and strength gains.
Thanks for the info but I am fairly well versed in the area! Not that this is a discussion for this forum but you would have to be very stupid to die from DNP.
Just wanted to not that I wasn't putting that out to you specifically, I've seen enough of your posts to know that you understand this. I'm sure you've been to enough of the PED sites to see what protocols are out there for both cycle and PCT but I was giving more of a general information post for others on the thread who may not have your background. Certainly, dying from DNP is stupid and taking any would count as stupid since even if you think you know what you are doing with it you can't possibly know what the dosage really is that you have in your hand. The biggest reason for overdoses is that the drug is not consistently mixed for all capsules so people think they are getting a certain dose but it's actually higher than they are used to and they bake themselves. Black market drugs, gotta love em.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
+1 dirty bulk is only really recommended for those who have a good drug cycle for both anabolic and cutting phases. As mentioned above a few times, when you go above a certain BF% you start gaining more fat and less muscle and that trend continues as you go up.
Even with "supplements" I don't think it is recommended. However that is for different reasons!
LOL no I wouldn't take the fat cutters, they are far worse than the anabolic agents!
How are the fat cutters worse than anabolic agents?
I don't believe that fat cutters or anabolic agents are the correct terms for anything. I believe he was referring to DNP which is effective but horrendous.
I wasn't trying to be accurate in terminology, not that most people use the correct terms but I digress, DNP is one of many weight loss chemicals, and obviously the worst, but not the only one that is very dangerous. Anabolic steroids and human growth hormone are rather benign compared to many of the weight loss products. Insulin is used both for weight loss and as an anabolic compound and is probably second to DNP as far as health risks but most bodybuilders also use various techniques such as sodium and potassium loading and other strong diuretics to get ready for competition and give them that shrink wrapped look. These tend to play havoc on the internal organs and likely a main contributor to the premature deaths of so many bodybuilders.
On a side note, IGF-1 is the most likely reason for the bubble gut so many top bodybuilders now have and is also something that will promote the growth of cancer cells as well. Inulin and IGF-1 are pretty dangerous drugs to be playing with.
Oh, and if you want to see how to treat your body like a pharmaceutical experiment take a trip to some of the PED forms around the net. It's just mind numbing the amount of drugs these people take from anabolic steroids, fat burners, diuretics, SARMS, SERMS, peptides, herbal compounds and a few other things. It's rather scary so see the risks that people are willing to take with their long-term health for short-term aesthetics and strength gains.
Thanks for the info but I am fairly well versed in the area! Not that this is a discussion for this forum but you would have to be very stupid to die from DNP.
Just wanted to not that I wasn't putting that out to you specifically, I've seen enough of your posts to know that you understand this. I'm sure you've been to enough of the PED sites to see what protocols are out there for both cycle and PCT but I was giving more of a general information post for others on the thread who may not have your background. Certainly, dying from DNP is stupid and taking any would count as stupid since even if you think you know what you are doing with it you can't possibly know what the dosage really is that you have in your hand. The biggest reason for overdoses is that the drug is not consistently mixed for all capsules so people think they are getting a certain dose but it's actually higher than they are used to and they bake themselves. Black market drugs, gotta love em.
You may die but you will die shredded Or being cooked from the inside out. 0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
+1 dirty bulk is only really recommended for those who have a good drug cycle for both anabolic and cutting phases. As mentioned above a few times, when you go above a certain BF% you start gaining more fat and less muscle and that trend continues as you go up.
Even with "supplements" I don't think it is recommended. However that is for different reasons!
LOL no I wouldn't take the fat cutters, they are far worse than the anabolic agents!
How are the fat cutters worse than anabolic agents?
I don't believe that fat cutters or anabolic agents are the correct terms for anything. I believe he was referring to DNP which is effective but horrendous.
I wasn't trying to be accurate in terminology, not that most people use the correct terms but I digress, DNP is one of many weight loss chemicals, and obviously the worst, but not the only one that is very dangerous. Anabolic steroids and human growth hormone are rather benign compared to many of the weight loss products. Insulin is used both for weight loss and as an anabolic compound and is probably second to DNP as far as health risks but most bodybuilders also use various techniques such as sodium and potassium loading and other strong diuretics to get ready for competition and give them that shrink wrapped look. These tend to play havoc on the internal organs and likely a main contributor to the premature deaths of so many bodybuilders.
On a side note, IGF-1 is the most likely reason for the bubble gut so many top bodybuilders now have and is also something that will promote the growth of cancer cells as well. Inulin and IGF-1 are pretty dangerous drugs to be playing with.
Oh, and if you want to see how to treat your body like a pharmaceutical experiment take a trip to some of the PED forms around the net. It's just mind numbing the amount of drugs these people take from anabolic steroids, fat burners, diuretics, SARMS, SERMS, peptides, herbal compounds and a few other things. It's rather scary so see the risks that people are willing to take with their long-term health for short-term aesthetics and strength gains.
Thanks for the info but I am fairly well versed in the area! Not that this is a discussion for this forum but you would have to be very stupid to die from DNP.
Just wanted to not that I wasn't putting that out to you specifically, I've seen enough of your posts to know that you understand this. I'm sure you've been to enough of the PED sites to see what protocols are out there for both cycle and PCT but I was giving more of a general information post for others on the thread who may not have your background. Certainly, dying from DNP is stupid and taking any would count as stupid since even if you think you know what you are doing with it you can't possibly know what the dosage really is that you have in your hand. The biggest reason for overdoses is that the drug is not consistently mixed for all capsules so people think they are getting a certain dose but it's actually higher than they are used to and they bake themselves. Black market drugs, gotta love em.
You may die but you will die shredded Or being cooked from the inside out.
Leave a handsome corpse! Abs baby, abs!
0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
+1 dirty bulk is only really recommended for those who have a good drug cycle for both anabolic and cutting phases. As mentioned above a few times, when you go above a certain BF% you start gaining more fat and less muscle and that trend continues as you go up.
Even with "supplements" I don't think it is recommended. However that is for different reasons!
LOL no I wouldn't take the fat cutters, they are far worse than the anabolic agents!
How are the fat cutters worse than anabolic agents?
I don't believe that fat cutters or anabolic agents are the correct terms for anything. I believe he was referring to DNP which is effective but horrendous.
What's DNP?0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
+1 dirty bulk is only really recommended for those who have a good drug cycle for both anabolic and cutting phases. As mentioned above a few times, when you go above a certain BF% you start gaining more fat and less muscle and that trend continues as you go up.
Even with "supplements" I don't think it is recommended. However that is for different reasons!
LOL no I wouldn't take the fat cutters, they are far worse than the anabolic agents!
How are the fat cutters worse than anabolic agents?
I don't believe that fat cutters or anabolic agents are the correct terms for anything. I believe he was referring to DNP which is effective but horrendous.
What's DNP?
nothing good.but its an anabolic steroid0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »Your 2 inches shorter than me but my starting weight was only 148 now I'm 169lbs. I'm not sure what my bf% is tbh I just posted a progress pic though. I'm dirty bulking bc it's faster and more convienent. I probably won't stop for a few more months trying to reach 185. So maybe you should shoot for 175-185
Enjoy your long drawn out diet to get lean. This is not the way to do it!
+1 dirty bulk is only really recommended for those who have a good drug cycle for both anabolic and cutting phases. As mentioned above a few times, when you go above a certain BF% you start gaining more fat and less muscle and that trend continues as you go up.
Even with "supplements" I don't think it is recommended. However that is for different reasons!
LOL no I wouldn't take the fat cutters, they are far worse than the anabolic agents!
How are the fat cutters worse than anabolic agents?
I don't believe that fat cutters or anabolic agents are the correct terms for anything. I believe he was referring to DNP which is effective but horrendous.
What's DNP?
nothing good.but its an anabolic steroid
DNP is not a steroid but rather it's a fat burner and one of the few that actually works very well. It's no longer sold for human consumption but is still used a fungicide for plants, which should give you an idea of how great an idea it is to take. It causes ATP to leak from the mitochondria and thus energy is lost so your body needs to mobilize more fat to compensate for the energy loss. The other major effect is that it increases body temperature as a result and was actually developed initially as a way to keep Russian soldiers warm during WWI. The problem is that if you overdose on it your body temperature rises so high that your internal organs eventually shut down and you literally have cooked yourself.0 -
Sounds like a bitchin' ride.0
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions