trainers or professional bodybuilders opinion needed
Options
Replies
-
Nice delts and traps....oh wait, what does that mean????
I would say low dose. You really gotta tighten things up if you want to maximize results!
0 -
dieselbyte wrote: »Nothing but a joke. Change in lighting, stance, flexed vs not. Being leaner and being able to see more muscle definition doesn't mean you gained muscle. You're going by looks. Dexa-scan and prove you added the muscle you say you did in that time frame.
This.0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »You're being assumptive and slanderous.
Sadly I don't have the data to show you as I wasn't as meticulous then.
The weight gain is self-reported so can be treated with a little skepticism but the rapid gain in size is visually apparent.
You made a claim with a very specific number of pounds attached, now you are stating you don't have data for it. Yet we are the ones making assumptions.
I agree with the others that lighting, getting leaner and the change in posing has more to do with the appearance of mass gains than actually making gains (especially since pec volume went down).0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »I've seen somthing similar to this happen with clients and myself. When coming back from a layoff I gained 14lbs in 3 months and got leaner. A client of mine gained 28lbs in 2 months and didn't add that much fat. If you increase volume fast enough and train with high intensity you can get some crazy results.
What method do you use to calculate that?
The "I want to believe" method.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »dieselbyte wrote: »Nothing but a joke. Change in lighting, stance, flexed vs not. Being leaner and being able to see more muscle definition doesn't mean you gained muscle. You're going by looks. Dexa-scan and prove you added the muscle you say you did in that time frame.
This.
^^that0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »I've seen somthing similar to this happen with clients and myself. When coming back from a layoff I gained 14lbs in 3 months and got leaner. A client of mine gained 28lbs in 2 months and didn't add that much fat. If you increase volume fast enough and train with high intensity you can get some crazy results.
What method do you use to calculate that?
The "I want to believe" method.
His post above with the pictures admitted that he doesn't have data and that the weight gain was self-reported. He has no method used to calculate because there is no data, which is why he avoided all my questions about his data collection and methods for calculating the lean mass gains.0 -
-
nancyjay__ wrote: »
Most people are looking at his shoulder (which looks different from the side versus front) and arm (which is flexed and from the side). I think the chest has less volume, which indicates that he didn't gain mass.0 -
Hokum.ScottJTyler wrote: »This was achieved by TRAINING HARD and not mentally restraining yourself by reading articles about theoretical limitations written by skinny guys on the internet.
0 -
A three-quarter view shot will always seem more impressive, because you are featuring more area to be seen. (I am a professional art director who works with commercial photographers so I know something about lighting, posing, and blocking a scene). You look cut, you look good, but the lack of empirical data leaves me unconvinced.ScottJTyler wrote: »These two pictures were taken in June and then August last Year. Sadly I don't have the data to show you as I wasn't as meticulous then. For context: the first picture was at the end of a 3 month break from weights and the second was after going straight back into 2 hours a day training for around 10 weeks.0 -
I tracked my weight and I was 77kg morning weight in the first and 83kg in the second. That's 6kg/13.2lbs in 10 weeks. The photo below is from August as well and in a similar stance. I didn't track anything other than weight or do proper before and after photos because I didn't expect such rapid results. I just trained my *kitten* off and this is what happened.
According to that article the limit is 0.5lb/week. So I must have gained 8.2lbs or more of just water and glycogen. Seems unlikely.
If you are so cynical and distrustful that only DEXA scan data will be sufficient evidence for you then you're going to be disappointed. Even if I did provide those you'd bring into question the accuracy of that method and highlight its prediction flaws.
The article says you can't build muscle in a calorie deficit which is nonsense and something I actually do have data for. These data are from a BIA scale.
This is from my current cut. My muscle mass was trending downwards initially because I lowered my volume and intensity because this is the common thing people say on the internet. Then right at the lowest point I decided to screw it and up my training again. Lo and behold, my muscle mass (actual muscle mass, not fat free mass) has been trending upwards while going from 11 to 9.5% bodyfat. And I'm not what you'd call 'untrained'.
Sounds obvious but if you increase the muscle building stimulus... you will build muscle, regardless of whether you’re in a calorie surplus or a deficit. Your body will find a way.
It doesn’t matter if you are in a ‘cut’ and/or you’re advanced, increase training volume and you’ll build muscle. Increase it rapidly and you will build muscle rapidly. Try it and prove me wrong.
0 -
nancyjay__ wrote: »
Most people are looking at his shoulder (which looks different from the side versus front) and arm (which is flexed and from the side). I think the chest has less volume, which indicates that he didn't gain mass.
Yea I was looking at his chest and stomach and using his head to scale. Looks smaller. Unless his head bulked too them I'm wrong0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »
According to that article the limit is 0.5lb/week. So I must have gained 8.2lbs or more of just water and glycogen. Seems unlikely.
If you are so cynical and distrustful that only DEXA scan data will be sufficient evidence for you then you're going to be disappointed. Even if I did provide those you'd bring into question the accuracy of that method and highlight its prediction flaws.
The article says you can't build muscle in a calorie deficit which is nonsense and something I actually do have data for. These data are from a BIA scale.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=218
And... Correct me if I'm wrong but your data is only showing .2 lb gain in muscle (if even accurate) over that period of time?
0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »I tracked my weight and I was 77kg morning weight in the first and 83kg in the second. That's 6kg/13.2lbs in 10 weeks. The photo below is from August as well and in a similar stance. I didn't track anything other than weight or do proper before and after photos because I didn't expect such rapid results. I just trained my *kitten* off and this is what happened.
According to that article the limit is 0.5lb/week. So I must have gained 8.2lbs or more of just water and glycogen. Seems unlikely.
If you are so cynical and distrustful that only DEXA scan data will be sufficient evidence for you then you're going to be disappointed. Even if I did provide those you'd bring into question the accuracy of that method and highlight its prediction flaws.
The article says you can't build muscle in a calorie deficit which is nonsense and something I actually do have data for. These data are from a BIA scale.
This is from my current cut. My muscle mass was trending downwards initially because I lowered my volume and intensity because this is the common thing people say on the internet. Then right at the lowest point I decided to screw it and up my training again. Lo and behold, my muscle mass (actual muscle mass, not fat free mass) has been trending upwards while going from 11 to 9.5% bodyfat. And I'm not what you'd call 'untrained'.
Sounds obvious but if you increase the muscle building stimulus... you will build muscle, regardless of whether you’re in a calorie surplus or a deficit. Your body will find a way.
It doesn’t matter if you are in a ‘cut’ and/or you’re advanced, increase training volume and you’ll build muscle. Increase it rapidly and you will build muscle rapidly. Try it and prove me wrong.
ok.
Looking at the data your FFM has been going down. So no, you aren't building muscle over the deficit.
While "%Muscle" has been going up, you have been losing muscle. It's just that the muscle loss has been smaller than the fat loss.
In other words: Bro, do you even math?
You still look great.0 -
Holy crap dude....You would have to be on some gear to get results like what you are saying....and even then your friend getting 28lbs??? in 2 months??????0
-
The fact that your numbers are all over the place - from day to day - should tell you right away your method is utter crap
Seriously - look at the last entry for "Muscle lbs." You really think you gained 1.9 lbs of muscle overnight?0 -
ScottJTyler wrote: »I tracked my weight and I was 77kg morning weight in the first and 83kg in the second. That's 6kg/13.2lbs in 10 weeks. The photo below is from August as well and in a similar stance. I didn't track anything other than weight or do proper before and after photos because I didn't expect such rapid results. I just trained my *kitten* off and this is what happened.
According to that article the limit is 0.5lb/week. So I must have gained 8.2lbs or more of just water and glycogen. Seems unlikely.
If you are so cynical and distrustful that only DEXA scan data will be sufficient evidence for you then you're going to be disappointed. Even if I did provide those you'd bring into question the accuracy of that method and highlight its prediction flaws.
The article says you can't build muscle in a calorie deficit which is nonsense and something I actually do have data for. These data are from a BIA scale.
This is from my current cut. My muscle mass was trending downwards initially because I lowered my volume and intensity because this is the common thing people say on the internet. Then right at the lowest point I decided to screw it and up my training again. Lo and behold, my muscle mass (actual muscle mass, not fat free mass) has been trending upwards while going from 11 to 9.5% bodyfat. And I'm not what you'd call 'untrained'.
Sounds obvious but if you increase the muscle building stimulus... you will build muscle, regardless of whether you’re in a calorie surplus or a deficit. Your body will find a way.
It doesn’t matter if you are in a ‘cut’ and/or you’re advanced, increase training volume and you’ll build muscle. Increase it rapidly and you will build muscle rapidly. Try it and prove me wrong.
Your table implies that you have lost muscle mass. What's up with that?
However, LBM =/= muscle.
Last year, you have not been lifting for 3 months - you can have the impact similar to newbie gains when returning from a lay off. Plus water/glycogen increase. Your assertion that your gains were all muscle is fundamentally flawed and particularly the assertion that it is possible for someone who is experienced and not coming back from a lay off. It kind of impairs credibility.0 -
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions