30lbs in 6 weeks
- Thread starter Proteinboy
- Start date
so how long have i been lifting?
my current statis is untrained my friend
my current statis is untrained my friend
Well you joined here in july 06 so at least a year and a bit. A long way past noob gains
What makes you say untrained?
i havent lifted in 5 months=no training=untrained
I can't wait to try this out. Whether or not it really gives 30 lbs or whatever (I highly doubt it, life causes me to be skeptical of ANY claims) It sounds much tougher than any kind of weight training I've odne before, and hopefully I'll see some progress.
anyway, do you guys recommend getting the book super squats or just a program online?
anyway, do you guys recommend getting the book super squats or just a program online?
I think the "bottom-Line" of the recent posts are this:
Harness the power of your frame of mind and allow this positive affect to influence cognitive processes, which will drive motivation and provide fuel for your selected program outline: this will allow high percentage of success close to, but not limited to, the results others have a achieved.
One is only limited by the type of mental application and adjoined outward action; positive affect increases ones own perceptions of expectancy:
Even if you get 15 pounds, in one month, for example.....this would be exceptional, no? Do not be narrowed minded and just think 30lbs.
Best regards,
Chillen
lol...me and dave were actually talking about it and i said that exact thing: "i think 15 pounds would be awesome even"
excellent summary by the way, chillen
excellent summary by the way, chillen
Protein Boy-it's called the GTO (golgi tendon organ) and it's the inhibitive mechanism (protective mechanism) of the body. Yes there is an adrenaline dump and in elementary terms, the GTO is turned off causing the body to do 'inhuman' acts of strength (referring to the lifting of the car due to baby trapped).
I think what Trevor's going through is what a lot of individuals go through when they start reading a lot and capturing a lot of new knowledge. We suddenly learn a lot of new things, but then we read a lot of things that are negative too. One of those things being, to a point, open mindedness to things that fly in the face of science and lab coat wearing geeks (no offence to lab coating wearing individuals whom we always are in need of). The problem with studies is they are extremely flawed and not tested towards a lot of 'in the field' situations. The 20 rep squat program is one that has not been tested in a lab. Sooo...we have studies that say the body is NOT capable of adding X amount of lean muscle in X amount of time but we have yet to put it to the test in the lab so it's not supported by science. I have no doubt that Trevor has probabally as of late finished 3-4 nice, long phys books and is making his way through another 2 at the same time. Knowledge is great, but I think we've seen over and over again that exercise physiologists and etc are always a bit or a long way behind what athletic trainers, smart coaches, and strength and conditioning coaches have already known.
If anyone is wondering where the saying "Squats and milk..." comes from, look no further than the program this thread is about.
I wonder how long ago (going back to the GTO area) science would say that the body is not capable of lifting up a car. However, it'd happened over and over again. Science now realizes that the body is capable of things it never realized and undoubtedly many more discoveries are coming.
We've come to realize through nutrient intake and timing that we can manipulate the body into crazy growth and cutting cycles.
Karky...the measurements can be taken with calipers. They'd just need to be done by the same person under similar circumstances. Consistency is key here.
Okay...I'm done rambling.
I think what Trevor's going through is what a lot of individuals go through when they start reading a lot and capturing a lot of new knowledge. We suddenly learn a lot of new things, but then we read a lot of things that are negative too. One of those things being, to a point, open mindedness to things that fly in the face of science and lab coat wearing geeks (no offence to lab coating wearing individuals whom we always are in need of). The problem with studies is they are extremely flawed and not tested towards a lot of 'in the field' situations. The 20 rep squat program is one that has not been tested in a lab. Sooo...we have studies that say the body is NOT capable of adding X amount of lean muscle in X amount of time but we have yet to put it to the test in the lab so it's not supported by science. I have no doubt that Trevor has probabally as of late finished 3-4 nice, long phys books and is making his way through another 2 at the same time. Knowledge is great, but I think we've seen over and over again that exercise physiologists and etc are always a bit or a long way behind what athletic trainers, smart coaches, and strength and conditioning coaches have already known.
If anyone is wondering where the saying "Squats and milk..." comes from, look no further than the program this thread is about.
I wonder how long ago (going back to the GTO area) science would say that the body is not capable of lifting up a car. However, it'd happened over and over again. Science now realizes that the body is capable of things it never realized and undoubtedly many more discoveries are coming.
We've come to realize through nutrient intake and timing that we can manipulate the body into crazy growth and cutting cycles.
Karky...the measurements can be taken with calipers. They'd just need to be done by the same person under similar circumstances. Consistency is key here.
Okay...I'm done rambling.
I can't say one way or the other, but if you say it is possible to gain 20 lbs in 6 weeks and 40 lbs in 10 weeks - so if you say so, fair enough, so be it.
But I still think arguing "from a physiological stand point" is a basic requirement of validating any such claims. Because if you can explain such claims from a physiological stand point, then presumably you can then determine what an upper limit for mass gains might be on the basis of the explanation of the gains found.
However, I don't think, for example, anyone can say ' the sky's the limit ' in terms of possible muscle gains in a 6 week period. Assume an average 150 lb gym rat and he / she trains ' perfecting / optimally' on all fronts for gains in mass. A gain of 20 lbs of lean muscle in 6 weeks - perhaps. A gain of 30 lbs in 6 weeks - maybe. A gain of 40 lbs in 6 weeks - maybe yes / maybe no. A gain of 50 lbs in 6 weeks - rare and atypical ......at best. A gain of 75 lbs in 6 weeks - very very unlikely. A gain of 100 lbs in 6 weeks - impossible.
So, for the average gym rat, going doing zero cardio all your life and having no aerobic base to running a 10k run in a sub 45 minute time - aerobically - after training for only 3 weeks isn't possible. I think that from a " physiological stand point " you body needs minimum amount of time to adapt to improve cardio fitness just as in this case where your body needs a minimum amount of time to adapt for hypertrophy...when it comes to muscle mass gains in 6 weeks , it simply can't be a case of ' the sky's the limit '.
Agreed.
And if we're talking about an absolute gain of 30 lb. in 6 weeks, then of course context comes into play yet again - " depend upon the individuals ".
I suspect all other things being equal - diet, training experience,training protocol etc. etc. - the likelihood of a 30 lb. gain in mass over 6 weeks for someone who is 140 lbs / 15% bf vs. someone who is 180 lbs / 15% bf vs. someone who is 220 lbs / 15% bf would vary quite a bit.
Agreed.
Again, I can't comment, but if you say you can gain 5 lbs. of mass a week .....40 lbs of mass in 8 weeks.......I'll have to believe you.
O.K. then , based on your academic training and ' real world ' experience, if it is possible to gain 40 lbs in 8 weeks under less than perfect conditions, how many lbs would you say it is possible to gain beyond 40 lbs in " perfect conditions " for guys like these ? 45 lbs. in 8 weeks ? 50 lbs. in 8 weeks ? 60++ lbs in 8 weeks ?
And, using this group as an example, what would you say is the likely absolute ' upper limit ' of lbs. these guys could gain in 8 weeks in your professional opinion ?
Agreed.
Again, I agree.
I don't think anyone is disputing sharp increases in size, power, or strength are possible. Rather, within that context, the debate is as to determining the limit as to what the human body can do in terms of adaptation over a 6 week period of " ideal " diet & training regimen. There must be an ' upper limit ' as to how much muscle you can gain. In that if you eat properly and train 6X a week ( or 4X or 5 X if that is deemed optimal ) and all factors are ideal and optimized, you have a 99% chance of gaining " x lbs " of muscle mass at the end of 6 weeks ...at which point you can say it is very very unlikely if not impossible you could gain " x lbs+ 5" or " x + 10++++ lbs. )
Similar to what karky said, the best thing to do would be to train 100 average 150 lbs gym rats who are in the ' optimal ' stage in training for muscle growth, give them an optimal diet and optimal mass building training protocol...and see how much mass they gain.
Agreed.
But again, the assumption has to be one in which people are training optimally - i.e hard training. perfect diet, optimal training protocol etc. - and only within that sort of context, try and determine the " upper limit " of muscle mass a person can be expected to gain in 6 weeks...whether that be expressed in terms of an absolute number of pounds or as a % of LBM etc. etc. etc.
On what basis does science form that opinion in your view ? Any idea what the ' limiting factor ' is that is cited by science ( if at all ) ?
Again, I can't comment on those 5 guys.
Perhaps.
But science is the primary tool by which many of todays protocols and principles have gained generally acceptance. Generally accepted nutritional, training, fitness and training principles are primarily based on scientific findings and theories ( so it can be either a deductive or deductive process ) such as HIIT/fat burning, determining metabolism ( i.e BMR ) Glycemic Index, nutrient timing ( pre, during, post workout ) etc. etc.
It seems the more science we quote, the less hard we work. We dont believe we can achieve goals because science doesnt support it.
Science just confuses. (I enjoy reading studies and new scientific studies)
Science just confuses. (I enjoy reading studies and new scientific studies)
An engineer, a physicist, and a mathmatician are in their own rooms. In each of these rooms, there is a small fire in one of the trash cans. The engineer notices his stuff is on fire, goes to the sink, fills a beaker of water,and dumps water on the fire until it goes out. The physicist, upon noticing his trashcan is on fire, gets out a pen and paper, does some calculations, fills a beaker with precisely the right amount of water, and slowly dumps it on the fire, until it just barely goes out. The mathmatician, upon noticing the fire, looks at it, does some calculations, and says "It can be done," and leaves the room.
Fux, I'm a nerd. But the joke can be applied.
Fux, I'm a nerd. But the joke can be applied.
I saw how this plan says to include a lot of milk in your diet, and I just read this over at T-Nation:
3. Raw Milk vs. Regular Milk
What about milk? Most T-Nation readers know my stance on moo juice. In my opinion, it’s not necessary, doesn’t always "do the body good," and should be minimized in the diet (although I see no need for total elimination unless you’re lactose intolerant).
However, if we could simply get more people to drink milk instead of sugary soda, we’d have less obesity and disease. But instead of focusing on healthy behaviors, experts will bicker on and on about regular milk vs. raw milk. Of course, all this does is serve to draw negative attention to milk and away from the other healthy decisions people could be making.
Sure, if it were possible to get raw milk that was guaranteed aseptic, it would be better than processed, pasteurized milk. But faced with the confusion, what do you, the hypothetical sub-optimal eater, do? Well, nine times out of ten, you avoid both kinds of milk and drink another Coca-Cola instead.
Verdict: Limit milk, and drink calorie-free beverages like water and green tea instead."
Can someone tell me why he would suggest limiting milk in our diets? Isn't it an excellent source of protein?
I know Protein boy drinks a ton of that stuff (read some of your nutrition log entries)
3. Raw Milk vs. Regular Milk
What about milk? Most T-Nation readers know my stance on moo juice. In my opinion, it’s not necessary, doesn’t always "do the body good," and should be minimized in the diet (although I see no need for total elimination unless you’re lactose intolerant).
However, if we could simply get more people to drink milk instead of sugary soda, we’d have less obesity and disease. But instead of focusing on healthy behaviors, experts will bicker on and on about regular milk vs. raw milk. Of course, all this does is serve to draw negative attention to milk and away from the other healthy decisions people could be making.
Sure, if it were possible to get raw milk that was guaranteed aseptic, it would be better than processed, pasteurized milk. But faced with the confusion, what do you, the hypothetical sub-optimal eater, do? Well, nine times out of ten, you avoid both kinds of milk and drink another Coca-Cola instead.
Verdict: Limit milk, and drink calorie-free beverages like water and green tea instead."
Can someone tell me why he would suggest limiting milk in our diets? Isn't it an excellent source of protein?
I know Protein boy drinks a ton of that stuff (read some of your nutrition log entries)
Last edited:
The point is that there is no way to know what the upper limit is. All I know is what I have seen happen, so the upper limit is at least that. Possibly higher??? Who knows?
If you are looking for scientific answers, you are not going to get them.
If that is done exactly what I said before will happen. 5% or less of the trainees will make it because they are the only ones mentally ready to do what it takes. That is the deciding factor on gaining a lot of mass in a short time. Everything else, as you say, the perfect nutrition plan (which rarely happens) and the perfect training program (which also is rarely the case) is secondary to the mental preparedness of the training individual.
As Evo and I were speaking of the other day, some people become champions for no other reason than because they said so. In spite of their diet or training routine.
The same can be said for gaining "the impossible" amount of mass. There are people out there that will gain it because "they said so" (read bring an intensity level that most cannot imagine) again, in spite of whatever their diet or training program is.
Science generally states that it is possible to gain 1-2 lbs of muscle in a month.
Science cannot test the limiting factor, which is the mental ability of a person to train above and beyond most other people.
That is the basis of this discussion. People ask "if it is possible then prove it." Science is not prepared to prove or disprove the fact that people can gain 30 lbs of mass in 6 weeks.
That, of course, does not stop the phenomenon from happening.
No. Science, generally, came around and proved most training principals that people were already using.
Again, No. Generally accepted nutritional, training, fitness and training principals are primarily based upon practical use in the field. Science came back later and validated many of the best methods.
HIIT, which has been in use since at least the 1800's, was around before science validated the idea.
You can't be telling me that people could not figure out "go fast, then go slower, go fast, then go slower" before science told them it was a good idea.
The GI is not new. Early bodybuilders were eating very low GI diets when they were training, well before we started using the term Glycemic Index.
This is another concept that has been around since at least the 1800's. It shows up in the writings of many old strength legends. Louis Cyr, Donald Dinnie, and Paul Anderson, just to name a few.
Paul Anderson writes about it in his books about having a proper meal before training. Since he had long training sessions he figured out that if he drank milk and honey he was able to keep his intensity higher for a longer period of time. He also stresses the consumption of carbohydrates and protein after the workout.
In studying the history of the strength game, I can safely say that there are not that many "new" ideas.
That is one of the best things I have heard in a long time. +rep
Perhaps.
Then again, look at the many issues / topics gym rats ' obsess ' about on this very forum.
You could easily argue many gym rats are absolutely ' obsessed ' with consuming things like .......
- whey protein / BCAAs
- dextrose / malodextrin
- lo/hi GI carbs
- creatine
- ' good ' fats
- etc. etc. etc.
- dextrose / malodextrin
- lo/hi GI carbs
- creatine
- ' good ' fats
- etc. etc. etc.
...and are also ' obsessed ' with protocols embracing things like ......
- insulin spikes, cortisol issues
- rep speeds ( i.e ' twitch ' muscle fibers )
- compound lifts
- 1 RMs & optimal sets / reps
- strategic eating
- metabolism / BMRs ( i.e Harris-Benedict & Katch-McArdle formulas )
- body fat %
- etc. etc. etc
- rep speeds ( i.e ' twitch ' muscle fibers )
- compound lifts
- 1 RMs & optimal sets / reps
- strategic eating
- metabolism / BMRs ( i.e Harris-Benedict & Katch-McArdle formulas )
- body fat %
- etc. etc. etc
.....primarily...... due to the insight obtained through science and or scientific evidence.
So, I'd conclude that science not only allows us to continue to train hard, but as a result of science, science can certainly give us an edge so we can train a lot ' smarter ' - prime examples being post-workout nutrition and HIIT !
.....primarily...... due to the insight obtained through science and or scientific evidence.
I think you need to read back over Goergens post as he addresses most of your points in that.
I'd suggest that every single one of your protocols originated in the gym and were later backed up by science. Things like compound lifts and 1rm training date back to ancient Greece
The nutrition leans heavily on science though, I'll give you that
That's why I buy the abridged movie versions. I love how Mel Siff gets his books narrated by Charles Heston.