View Single Post
Old 11-25-2009, 08:58 AM   #21
Bearded Beast of Duloc
Max Brawn
BendtheBar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 76,876
Training Exp: 20+ years
Training Type: Powerbuilding
Fav Exercise: Deadlift
Fav Supp: Butter
Reputation: 2774165
BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!BendtheBar is one with Crom!

Originally Posted by kitarpyar View Post
This leads to another question I have... Can weight-training increase the bone density to an extent?
I've never really read on this issue. But back in 1988, after 2 years of training, I had a very bad car accident when the car flipped head over tail 7 to 8 times doing 70+ MPH. It sounds very dramatic, and it was. We took a curve too quickly. I walked away without a single scratch. The other passenger broke her back.

I know this isn't "science" but it has always made me curious about bone density.

Originally Posted by kitarpyar View Post
That is a good point. I guess increase in lean body mass does not mean the same increase in the muscle tissues, since a significant part of the increase is due to additional water retention.

I guess another issue is that I am no expert in using BF calipers, so it might have been very easy to screw up on caliper measurements + initial BF% is what I have from anthropometric measurements rather than calipers.

The 30 lb gain I speak of is not overall increase in bodyweight. I started at BW = 140 lbs, LBM = 120-121. Overall weight gain was different - at my heaviest, it was 55 lbs (BW = 195, LBM = 156). After cutting down overall gain is 35 lbs above the starting weight (BW = 175, LBM = 151).
I'm sure you're good enough with a caliper to be fairly accurate. In my experience, it's much easier to gain an accurate reading when you're lean(er). I know this sounds obvious, but I thought I would state it anyway

Originally Posted by kitarpyar View Post
Yep, I know a few of them myself, and some have pics to back it up. But I think many of those cases are when folks start pretty young, in their teens - i.e. it becomes hard to say how much of the gains is due to their training and how much is a result of the simple process of growing up.
The "Orlando" guy from Casey's article thread gained about 70 pounds. He's a good example. A very impressive gain, just like your gain. Regardless of the gain's composition.

Many trainees never master eating enough to gain weight.

Originally Posted by kitarpyar View Post
That apart, while I hate to bring this in a discussion, present day "natural" is a different breed altogether. Some would consider PH to be natural (I think till a while back at least some nattie BB organization turned a blind eye towards PH). Not a diss in any way, just sayin that the folks who fall within the ambit of Casey's equations didnt have the benefit of that stuff, and hence, these days its hard to say if a claim of natural 60 lbs increase is just 60 lbs gain on good food and a whey protein shake (40s and 50s style), or good food + *super* supps.
It's a good point. Some do consider "legal" products to be natural. I don't.

With that said, I've yet to see a natural with max lean mass really benefit much from straight PHs. Most of the users I see using them that have made decent gains have gained 10 to 15 pounds of muscle, and are far from maxing natural potential.I know this has nothing to do with the issue.

Originally Posted by kitarpyar View Post
And this really is an interesting point to note - it is 34-35 lbs more than the average guy of your height, NOT 34-35 lbs more than when you started. Compared to 15%BF and 145 lbs (your starting condition), your LBM has gone up by a whopping 56 lbs. Not sure if Casey meant Reg Parks had 38 lbs more than the average 6'2" dude, or whether he meant Reg Parks gained a total of 38 lbs of lean mass since he started training, but given the context of the post, I assumed the latter. Of course, given that Parks was definitely not underweight starting out, both ways it might have been the same.
That's one point about Casey's equations that I'm not familiar with either. I don't know how much Reg weighed when he started lifting...and if he began as a 140 pound at the age of 14 or 15. I always assumed Casey was basing that of averages for height and weight. Though with Casey, I shouldn't assume. He probably knows more about Reg's weight then Reg did.

Originally Posted by kitarpyar View Post
This also brings me to another question (yes, yet another - I like asking questions ) - Casey has a number of different equations in his book, one of which is for hardgainers; the "potential" for hard-gainers is significantly less than the standard values from the calculator on his web-site. Just wondering, in addition to Casey's definition of hard-gainers (short muscle bellies, relatively low natural test levels, etc), the fact that someone has been underweight all his life prior to lifting can be taken as an indication of someone being a hard-gainer. I am still at a lower LBM predicted by the hard-gainer equation, although by only 3-4 of lbs given my current BF level. May be not, but just wondering.
I think the hardgainer issue is much more up in the air. I fit some of the classic hardgainer class signs...small bones, skinny with little muscle, weak, lower testosterone. But I don't know if I fit them all.

There are so many factors that create an underweight individual. Metabolism, exercise, hormones, etc.

Personally, and I'm only basing this on opinion, I think most hardgainers can come close to the standard natural mass predictions. It might just take time.

A magical thing happened to my body at the age of 30. I had been away from lifting for 8 years, and I came back and was naturally strong. I have no clue why. In a year's time I was benching 430, and doing overhead DB presses with 120's.

I hadn't spent the last 8 years doing physical labor. I was in sales for 5 years previously, and worked 60 to 70 hours a week, ate horribly, and got no exercise.

But yet my body was still changing. From the age of 20 to 30, physiologically I was still changing. I went from weak to "country boy strong."

Which leads me to my point...each of us is different. And those that consider themselves a hardgainer now might be shocked in 5 years at how much lighter the weight becomes, and how much muscle they are adding.

Originally Posted by kitarpyar View Post
Lol, no worries

If I take your approach and compare the amount of lean body mass that I have over and above what healthy folks my height would have, it turns out to be a measly 6-7 lbs more (and obviously, no patch on the gains of Reg Parks and other top drug-free lifters of that era). Always good to have a reality check, and I would rather people tell me the facts as they are rather than say w/e I have done is awesome - that's what would help me progress.
You have made great progress. Keep pushing hard! It is an indicator of your future success.

Destroy That Which Destroys You

"Let bravery be thy choice, but not bravado."

BendtheBar is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links