gaining muscle

On May 25 2010 06:01 omg.deus wrote:
for the last year I've been training to a hold a planche, one of the hardest feats of strenth out there. Even though I used to work out in a gym I never have gained as much upper body muscle and strength as I have through planche training. anyways, i think it's such a weird feeling when you start being able to flex muscles that you never knew you had. i dont know the names of the muscles but there are multiple areas of my back and shoulders that I can now flex that I never knew I could....it's such a weird but awesome feeling

as far as my progress...i've been working my butt off almost on a daily basis for a year and on a really good day I can hold a straddle planche with perfect form for about 3-5 seconds. I'm really happy with my progress so far. I'm going to continue training until I can do a pushup in the straddle position. I really have no intention of achieving a true straight legged planche because it's pretty much impossible.

On May 25 2010 07:23 rbkl wrote:
Whey protein? I heard creatine works, but isn't good for you.

On May 25 2010 07:50 skronch wrote:

i don't mean to hijack your thread, but what sort of whey protein do you recommend? i heard that muscle milk as creatine. are there any negative health consequences?

On May 25 2010 07:51 omg.deus wrote:
yeah but i dont workout to look good but rather to get strong....i do a lot of roofing and it just makes my day easier if im strong

On May 25 2010 07:55 WeSt wrote:


Destroys your liver in the long term.

On May 25 2010 08:26 omg.deus wrote:
The probem I have isn't that I'm not eating enough protein, but that I am burning it too quickly. I have that stereotypical asian metabolism and all I do at work is climb up and down a ladder. It's the most annoying thing in the world to force yourself to eat b/c ur scared of losing weight.

On May 25 2010 08:23 Sashimi wrote:
Like many people said, it is your diet not workout... Asian diets cannot be used for body building, it does not provide enough calories and protein per meal. Unless you eat galbi and bulgogi every meal, 6 times a day then it is a whole different story.

For you to gain muscle, eat every 3 hours(full meals)that's roughly how long it takes for the food to be emptied from your stomach into the small intestine. You want to keep your body in an anabolic state, the moment you stomach is empty, your body will go into catabolic state and start breaking down shit to fuel itself.

You don't need those whey proteins, they are just waste of money. I have used them for years. They don't do enough compared to full proper meals. It is a big investment and takes a lot of preparation and commitment. GL.

On May 25 2010 08:26 omg.deus wrote:
The probem I have isn't that I'm not eating enough protein, but that I am burning it too quickly. I have that stereotypical asian metabolism and all I do at work is climb up and down a ladder. It's the most annoying thing in the world to force yourself to eat b/c ur scared of losing weight.

On May 25 2010 08:43 decafchicken wrote:


Eat more, eat better, eat at the right times. Lots of meat, peanut butter, milk, whole eggs. you should be taking in 3000-3200 calories a day. Guarentee you will put on lots of weight quickly.



Yeah its hard to put on muscle when you eat rice and veggies every meal lol.

But whey protein is important, there have been countless placebo studies on it. It is the fastest absorbed form of protein and should be taken within 30 minutes of working out.

On May 25 2010 08:47 omg.deus wrote:
i work a regular full time job so I can't eat every couple hours... I eat 4-5 eggwhites in the morning with some toast and eat about 4-5 sandwiches during the work day. At night I load up on some kind of protein...chicken.fish...pork...steak....w/e....i'm eating as much as i can but you burn a lot when your sweating all day and running around.

On May 25 2010 08:50 condoriano wrote:
Anyone cares that eating a lot shortens your life span? Or that you will look like trash when you are 45 and stop working out for a few months?

I really have nothing against people that work out a lot, I do too. Just wondering how does something like eating a lot more than an average person will really benefit you? You will gain mass, that's true, but you are slowly killing yourself while at it. It has nothing to do with "eating healthy" really.

On May 25 2010 08:59 decafchicken wrote:
...troll?

On May 25 2010 08:50 condoriano wrote:
Anyone cares that eating a lot shortens your life span? Or that you will look like trash when you are 45 and stop working out for a few months?

I really have nothing against people that work out a lot, I do too. Just wondering how does something like eating a lot more than an average person will really benefit you? You will gain mass, that's true, but you are slowly killing yourself while at it. It has nothing to do with "eating healthy" really.

On May 25 2010 09:22 iMarshall wrote:
[When you're 45 and stop working out, you'll have to adjust to the changes in your metabolic rate by being more conscious about what you eat.

On May 25 2010 09:58 condoriano wrote:

I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average).

On May 25 2010 10:06 omg.deus wrote:


i didn't read your links but you say that vegetarians live longer...which I believe...but it could have nothing to do with them not eating meat. A vegetarian would be more likely to live a healthy lifestyle overrall and therefore live longer. A vegetarian who is concerned about being healthy probably wouldn't smoke, do drugs, drink excessively and also be proactive in being healthy by exercising regularly, getting enough sleep...etc..

doesn't surprise me at all that vegetarians live longer on average

On May 25 2010 09:58 condoriano wrote:
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevityboosters/a/calorie_life.htm

http://www.iangoddard.com/cr.htm

It will be impossible to have this taught in biology class because it contradicts official calorie requirement theory, which is a complete bs to many scientists.

I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average).



It doesn't work like that. If you worked out a lot and became huge there's no way you will look healthy after 45 if you stop exercising. You will add pounds of fat around your body and a lot of your lean muscle will become fat. The skin will sag a lot more than it would normally. You will probably end up with high blood pressure and heart problems.

While such studies based on epidemiological data establish correlation, not causation, the weight of these findings among human populations in addition to laboratory proof that CR extends the lifespan of other mammals tends to favor the hypothesis that CR will also extend human lifespan.

On May 25 2010 10:42 condoriano wrote:
Interesting, how would you perform such a study on humans directly? All they can use is evidence that mammals live longer in general when they receive less calories and that vegetarians (or whoever else eats moderately) live longer in general. You can't just test 1000 subjects randomly, to begin with this experiment would take ~80-90 years lol. All you can play with is raw data from other sources. This is science too, you know?

On May 25 2010 10:42 condoriano wrote:
Interesting, how would you perform such a study on humans directly? All they can use is evidence that mammals live longer in general when they receive less calories and that vegetarians (or whoever else eats moderately) live longer in general. You can't just test 1000 subjects randomly, to begin with this experiment would take ~80-90 years lol. All you can play with is raw data from other sources. This is science too, you know?

On May 25 2010 10:50 decafchicken wrote:


Yes real studies would have to take place. They would probably have to take a while and require a lot of work. That is how studies usually work. Playing around with raw data can lead to a lot of false conclusions and a lot of correlation vs causation and isn't exactly "scientific"

I can eat 4k calories a day because i work out and have the metabolism to support it. If i do the same when i'm older and my metabolism is slower and if i stopped working out, obviously that would have negative effects on my health but unrelated to what i did in my ounger years.. What i would do is a) keep exercising and b) adjust my intake to my metabolic rate. I don't see any logic or conclusive studies as to how eating a lot and becoming more muscular now will take years off my life later.

On May 25 2010 11:08 iMarshall wrote:

Of course it's science, and I agree with the fact that it's hard to do a study that would only take a year or two, when you would need to study a lot of people for decades to get any very hard evidence. The thing is that I've been reading a lot about this now since we started discussing it, and all of the articles I've read about this (and their sources) are just so inconclusive.

The discussion did start with talking about the quantity of food you should eat while exercising regularly. My point is that even though there may be several benefits of eating less calories (in terms of longevity, the body still needs calories. A lot of the studies I read also dealt with people with different diseases going on low calorie-diets, most times ending badly. This is especially true for children, who can often experience lacking growth due to huge calorie- and fat restrictions.
Now if you want to build more muscle, you have to eat more. While I may have misunderstood your point with regards to this, I'm still sure that you can't expect to maintain big muscle growth while doing calorie restrictions and not eating any proteins. You also haven't adressed what you define as "eating less", other than restricting your calories. If you wanted to get as many calories from broccoli as is found in 100g of snickers, you'd have to eat 1,7kg (for 509 kcal), which I would define as a huge meal, at least in volume. It's all about what you eat, and how many calories your body needs.

On May 25 2010 11:18 condoriano wrote:


Yeah I am not a vegetarian myself, I drink and I eat a lot of garbage food like most people do. I've just always thought that this concept had some merit. I do agree that you need all that calorie intake if you want to be muscular and have that buff body. Most people are willing to take this risk (especially with somewhat inconclusive evidence). People do steroids, how can this even compare.

Few things might change though, just like it turned out that excessive carbohydrates will lead to obesity while not that long ago higher carb intake was recommended as a part of a diet to lose weight

On May 25 2010 09:58 condoriano wrote:
http://longevity.about.com/od/longevityboosters/a/calorie_life.htm

http://www.iangoddard.com/cr.htm

It will be impossible to have this taught in biology class because it contradicts official calorie requirement theory, which is a complete bs to many scientists.

I personally believe this (and it's a fact that vegetarians live longer on average).



It doesn't work like that. If you worked out a lot and became huge there's no way you will look healthy after 45 if you stop exercising. You will add pounds of fat around your body and a lot of your lean muscle will become fat. The skin will sag a lot more than it would normally. You will probably end up with high blood pressure and heart problems.

On May 25 2010 12:04 DallasTx wrote:
Edit: okay, my bad, I didn't realize that quite a few people actually think that muscle can turn into fat, sorry for calling you a troll.

Now, back to the point: You gain fat simply when you eat above your maintenance level! Arnold looks fat because he lost all his muscle, not because his muscle turned into fat! Say he had a body fat of 8% while weighing 250 lbs. Now, say you weight 150 lbs and you have 11% body fat. I don't want to do the math but Arnold still has more fat then you, and when he stops working out and loses his muscle, all that's left is fat! So its not like his muscle magically turned into fat, you can't do that.

On May 25 2010 12:19 condoriano wrote:


Nice edit, I was about to QQ

Way to jump the gun, as if someone uses "muscle turns into fat" literally. You lose muscle mass and gain fat, thus the expression.

On May 25 2010 11:11 condoriano wrote:


This should count for a study:

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/07/09/calorierestriction.php

I'm not saying people should randomly start eating less, often times it makes no sense. If you play rugby and work out to get that mass - there's no other way for you besides eating 4k calories a day. I doubt that bodybuilders care much about their life span shortening by 10-20 years. What surprises me is that you don't think it's harder on your body compared to someone who eats twice as little. Every time you digest food you waste energy too. Your liver, your heart, your kidneys - everything's involved and isn't meant to last forever. If you process 2x the amount of food through your digestive system than why would it last just as long as if you didn't. And I'm sure it isn't all lean meat and veggies that you eat.