Getting fat - bad idea?
schpitt
Posts: 37 Member
I've tried to lift and eat but I never got big. So now my plan is to be absolutely sedentary and eat as much as I possibly can until I get Santa Claus fat (if that's even possible for me)
and then begin a muscle building regiment without cutting.
Is this a bad idea? I want a layer of fat over all the muscles that I want to grow (not just stomach) so that they have localised energy sources
P.S. Just want to mention I broke through 3000 calories today for the first time, really chuffed about that!
and then begin a muscle building regiment without cutting.
Is this a bad idea? I want a layer of fat over all the muscles that I want to grow (not just stomach) so that they have localised energy sources
P.S. Just want to mention I broke through 3000 calories today for the first time, really chuffed about that!
0
Replies
-
I doubt it works like that.... Maybe ask a doctor?0
-
If you get fat, you won't have the metabolism or energy to lift, and even if you do, the muscle will burn the fat. I really don't see how you can do both...0
-
I've tried to lift and eat but I never got big. So now my plan is to be absolutely sedentary and eat as much as I possibly can until I get Santa Claus fat (if that's even possible for me)
and then begin a muscle building regiment without cutting.
Is this a bad idea? I want a layer of fat over all the muscles that I want to grow (not just stomach) so that they have localised energy sources
P.S. Just want to mention I broke through 3000 calories today for the first time, really chuffed about that!
No0 -
Sounds like an awful idea. Bodybuilders use the bulk phase to add as much muscle as possible with as little fat as possible. Fat doesn't turn into muscle. You will end up with the same amount of muscle with an extra 100 pounds of fat, and you still won't be adding muscle any faster when you start your recomp.
Eat more food. I'm cutting and eating @ your goal. 3000 calories should not be a surprise, but the norm.0 -
Don't get fat! Its better to shred fat and then bulk ` and you may already be lean??
check out Bodybuilding.com - seems to have satisfied any answers I have had when it comes to bodybuilding0 -
I've tried to lift and eat but I never got big. So now my plan is to be absolutely sedentary and eat as much as I possibly can until I get Santa Claus fat (if that's even possible for me)
and then begin a muscle building regiment without cutting.
Is this a bad idea? I want a layer of fat over all the muscles that I want to grow (not just stomach) so that they have localised energy sources
P.S. Just want to mention I broke through 3000 calories today for the first time, really chuffed about that!
Keep in mind it will be another year before they will be hiring for the role of Santa Claus.
If you could does put on fat where you wanted perhaps your thoughts would be more entertaining.
The fact is you will deposit fat at some point around your vital organs and that over time can be deadly to your health. If you will eat rich pies, etc you can hit 5000+ daily I can tell you from experience.
0 -
superslug375 wrote: »If you get fat, you won't have the metabolism or energy to lift, and even if you do, the muscle will burn the fat. I really don't see how you can do both...
I understand that this is a joke thread but that's a pretty silly point. If what you say is true, how do you explain the brutally powerful fat guys of powerlifting, olympic lifting and strongman fame? Most of the very strongest guys in the world are hugely fat. The strongest guys around generally are the 400lb+ strongmen competitors.
0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »I've tried to lift and eat but I never got big. So now my plan is to be absolutely sedentary and eat as much as I possibly can until I get Santa Claus fat (if that's even possible for me)
and then begin a muscle building regiment without cutting.
Is this a bad idea? I want a layer of fat over all the muscles that I want to grow (not just stomach) so that they have localised energy sources
P.S. Just want to mention I broke through 3000 calories today for the first time, really chuffed about that!
No
no X a million….
this may be the worst idea in the history of MFP0 -
superslug375 wrote: »If you get fat, you won't have the metabolism or energy to lift, and even if you do, the muscle will burn the fat. I really don't see how you can do both...
This guy and his 326kg bench suggest otherwise. (granted there is plenty of muscle and the fat)
I have no idea what you mean by "the muscle will burn the fat"?
0 -
It's true that if all you want is strength and you really don't care about the fat then you shouldn't really cut. Any cutting no matter how conservative will deter muscle growth time. That's why all the really big power lifters aren't ripped. It's because they never cut. However it's not because the fat actually helps them. It's because they don't hurt their muscle growth progress by going through periods of cutting. Meaning their muscles are growing 100% of the time. Basically your fat metabolism mobilizes energy from all over your body into a kind of mobile form in your blood. Which your muscles draw from. It doesn't matter one jot to muscles if they have "local" fat. However there is something to be said for a moderate amount of local fat for smooth joint movement. At least according to my physio.
I am a firm believer that it is healthy and natural to carry a moderate amount of fat. And that single digit body fat is not on this side of the healthy line. Oh it isn't "very" unhealthy. But there are good reasons why abs are so difficult to obtain. It's because your body really doesn't want to be without that much fat. And for good reason. The fat metabolism is an integral part of the way your body stores mobilizes and utilizes energy. And I believe when you reduce fat to such a huge extent you retard that process. It might "look" appealing. But it isn't actually healthy at that extreme. This might seem contradictory. However once you have very little body fat your body can't mobilize much energy from it.
So basically you need to decide on how you are going to strike a balance between health, performance and aesthetics. And find something you are comfortable with. IF you just want to look good. Then super low bodyfat is your destination. If you just wanna be healthy then 15-20% is totally fine. Under 25% is probably ok too. Anything above that and it's starting to become a real problem. Body fat under 15% is primarily an aesthetic consideration.
0 -
I think this is a good point. There are a lot of people on here (not just males, but females as well) who have never really had defined abs but are trying very hard to get them or keep them. But in reality, I think a lot of these people (particularly those who are past the young adulthood stage) don't realize that some experts/charts would consider that (8-9% for males, 16-18% for females) basically lower than the "ideal" range.But there are good reasons why abs are so difficult to obtain. It's because your body really doesn't want to be without that much fat. And for good reason. The fat metabolism is an integral part of the way your body stores mobilizes and utilizes energy. And I believe when you reduce fat to such a huge extent you retard that process. It might "look" appealing. But it isn't actually healthy at that extreme. This might seem contradictory. However once you have very little body fat your body can't mobilize much energy from it.
0 -
Is tis ever a serious question?
0 -
It's true that if all you want is strength and you really don't care about the fat then you shouldn't really cut. Any cutting no matter how conservative will deter muscle growth time. That's why all the really big power lifters aren't ripped. It's because they never cut. However it's not because the fat actually helps them. It's because they don't hurt their muscle growth progress by going through periods of cutting. Meaning their muscles are growing 100% of the time. Basically your fat metabolism mobilizes energy from all over your body into a kind of mobile form in your blood. Which your muscles draw from. It doesn't matter one jot to muscles if they have "local" fat. However there is something to be said for a moderate amount of local fat for smooth joint movement. At least according to my physio.
I am a firm believer that it is healthy and natural to carry a moderate amount of fat. And that single digit body fat is not on this side of the healthy line. Oh it isn't "very" unhealthy. But there are good reasons why abs are so difficult to obtain. It's because your body really doesn't want to be without that much fat. And for good reason. The fat metabolism is an integral part of the way your body stores mobilizes and utilizes energy. And I believe when you reduce fat to such a huge extent you retard that process. It might "look" appealing. But it isn't actually healthy at that extreme. This might seem contradictory. However once you have very little body fat your body can't mobilize much energy from it.
So basically you need to decide on how you are going to strike a balance between health, performance and aesthetics. And find something you are comfortable with. IF you just want to look good. Then super low bodyfat is your destination. If you just wanna be healthy then 15-20% is totally fine. Under 25% is probably ok too. Anything above that and it's starting to become a real problem. Body fat under 15% is primarily an aesthetic consideration.
Good point on some fat is more healthy for most. I will be happy getting under 25%. Skinny people do not live as long or survive major health events as well.
0 -
I recommend you eat lots of vegetables. Clean eating can definitely help make you fat as long as you remain sedentary and consume in excess of your TDEE. Good luck!0
-
Not sure if troll but I'll bite. If you want to gain that much fat, just keep in mind that weight gain is easy and requires no real self control like weight loss. A moderate surplus is best. Gaining weight will not equal strength. There are 150 lb power lifters that can out lift the fattest couch potato. Inherently, if you are going to lift, and you are going to maintain some kind of surplus, be it a moderate one or a balls to the walls bear mode surplus, fat will build up. Consider the health risks that will inevitably be a factor with your plan to become fat.
Look at Klokov, mad strength but he isn't full bear mode. Get a good strength program, eat enough so that your body is anabolic and there should be no need to get fat in order to become strong.0 -
Just spot reduce the fat when you're done...you'll be fine.0
-
have you tried the hurcules diet. it is what Dwayne Johnson did to bulk for the movie. my dad did it and he ate a pretty large amount every 3 hours. rice, chicken, and fish. lots of veggies. might be what you are looking for google it.0
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »It's true that if all you want is strength and you really don't care about the fat then you shouldn't really cut. Any cutting no matter how conservative will deter muscle growth time. That's why all the really big power lifters aren't ripped. It's because they never cut. However it's not because the fat actually helps them. It's because they don't hurt their muscle growth progress by going through periods of cutting. Meaning their muscles are growing 100% of the time. Basically your fat metabolism mobilizes energy from all over your body into a kind of mobile form in your blood. Which your muscles draw from. It doesn't matter one jot to muscles if they have "local" fat. However there is something to be said for a moderate amount of local fat for smooth joint movement. At least according to my physio.
I am a firm believer that it is healthy and natural to carry a moderate amount of fat. And that single digit body fat is not on this side of the healthy line. Oh it isn't "very" unhealthy. But there are good reasons why abs are so difficult to obtain. It's because your body really doesn't want to be without that much fat. And for good reason. The fat metabolism is an integral part of the way your body stores mobilizes and utilizes energy. And I believe when you reduce fat to such a huge extent you retard that process. It might "look" appealing. But it isn't actually healthy at that extreme. This might seem contradictory. However once you have very little body fat your body can't mobilize much energy from it.
So basically you need to decide on how you are going to strike a balance between health, performance and aesthetics. And find something you are comfortable with. IF you just want to look good. Then super low bodyfat is your destination. If you just wanna be healthy then 15-20% is totally fine. Under 25% is probably ok too. Anything above that and it's starting to become a real problem. Body fat under 15% is primarily an aesthetic consideration.
Good point on some fat is more healthy for most. I will be happy getting under 25%. Skinny people do not live as long or survive major health events as well.
LOL what?
I was 95-97 lbs and 12-14% body fat my entire life. I was diagnosed with skin cancer (melanoma) when I was a sophomore in HS. I survived just fine, if not better than most. I have Crohn's disease and well, I survived that too. I have supraventricular tachycardia and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and guess what, my heart's still beating!
Quit posting nonsense here. I truly don't understand how you haven't been banned from the forums yet.
0 -
cbharden12 wrote: »have you tried the hurcules diet. it is what Dwayne Johnson did to bulk for the movie. my dad did it and he ate a pretty large amount every 3 hours. rice, chicken, and fish. lots of veggies. might be what you are looking for google it.
0 -
sounds like this person is a gainer, I wouldn't take it seriously0
-
Here's a better idea. Eats lots & lift heavy. You'll fuel the gains without getting all jolly looking (unless you're looking for a part-time job at a department store in December).
0 -
-
Good point on some fat is more healthy for most. I will be happy getting under 25%. Skinny people do not live as long or survive major health events as well.
Please regale us on why this is "true". Last time I checked thin people's risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes was pretty much non existent.0 -
That's gonna mess you up and give you loose skin, too. Blargh, don't do that!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
[/quote]
LOL what?
I was 95-97 lbs and 12-14% body fat my entire life. I was diagnosed with skin cancer (melanoma) when I was a sophomore in HS. I survived just fine, if not better than most. I have Crohn's disease and well, I survived that too. I have supraventricular tachycardia and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome and guess what, my heart's still beating!
Quit posting nonsense here. I truly don't understand how you haven't been banned from the forums yet.
[/quote]
# anecdotal evidence
Do a little reading of actual statistical evidence and you will see that what medical professionals generally consider to be an ideal weight is bmi 21 so that if one becomes ill, there is still a bit of an energy reserve they can live off of even if they are unable to take in adequate nutrition for a period of time. Ideal weight can vary based on genetics of course, but medically speaking there is something to be said for a moderate energy reserve.0 -
goddessofawesome wrote: »Good point on some fat is more healthy for most. I will be happy getting under 25%. Skinny people do not live as long or survive major health events as well.
Please regale us on why this is "true". Last time I checked thin people's risk of metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes was pretty much non existent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2011309/Broken-bones-depression-lung-disease-Why-skinny-bad-you.html
Being underweight carries a greater death risk than being even moderately overweight. Although clearly obesity is the most dangerous.
0 -
It's true that if all you want is strength and you really don't care about the fat then you shouldn't really cut. Any cutting no matter how conservative will deter muscle growth time. That's why all the really big power lifters aren't ripped. It's because they never cut. However it's not because the fat actually helps them. It's because they don't hurt their muscle growth progress by going through periods of cutting. Meaning their muscles are growing 100% of the time. Basically your fat metabolism mobilizes energy from all over your body into a kind of mobile form in your blood. Which your muscles draw from. It doesn't matter one jot to muscles if they have "local" fat. However there is something to be said for a moderate amount of local fat for smooth joint movement. At least according to my physio.
I think this is the big thing. It's not so much that the purposely gain fat as much as they're constantly focused on fueling growth and the increase in fat is simply a secondary effect of making sure you're eating enough. None of them sat there and said "I'm going to put on a lot of fat so I then can build muscle".0 -
6 posts and no completed profile...0
This discussion has been closed.
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