Let's Get Ripped, OT!

Great advice.

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] This is completely and entirely incorrect. Natural trainees should not be doing isolations, if anything it's counter productive. Doing extra ab work will yield no better results than just doing heavy compound lifts which works your entire core in the manner in which it naturally functions; stabilising the spine. Crunches and situps and whatever else might make you 'feel the burn' are borderline useless at building dry muscle mass. You're wasting your time.

GummiRaccoon

When I said ab exercises I wasn't referring to crunches and sit-ups, but rather hang-raises, and planks, which are proven to be better.  I think people have this idea that ab excercises are useless because they only do crunches or sit-ups. 

because the venn diagram of the guy working abs and the guy doing curls is going to be 99% overlap

I think you responded to the wrong post.

Anecdotal evidence is hardly anything to go by. You can do the worst routine imaginable and still make some gains. There's a guy in my gym who does TWENTY SETS of bench with baby weights and he even he looks ok after a year of training. Isolations and direct ab work are both sub optimal to the point of being pointless in natural trainees. You will get vastly better gains doing heavy compound rows or weighted chin ups then all the curls you could ever do. Most people doing lifts wrong is not a good reason to dismiss what works best and what works the least. Learn to lift properly. If you're committed to lifting and getting results, take a day to do some research and know what you're doing. Doing sit ups to work your abs is also a ridiculous ineffective thing to do and will only end up giving you anterior pelvic tilt from tightening your hip flexors so much. You'll end up with little to no improvement in muscle mass around your abdominals and a posture deformity. Not bad for hours of work in the gym. At the end of the day, the mantra of do whatever the **** you wanna do is the correct one. But in terms of pure irrefutable scientific facts, heavy compound lifts are the most effective means of training for a natural trainee. Ninja-Hippo

I think we are arguing slightly different things here. I am not arguing that isolation core exercises are ideal or should replace compound heavy weight exercising, but you are vastly underestimating the benefits. Like I said not everyone has access to gyms or weights, and some people have to make-do with what they have, and in these cases, performing a well structured routine with proper form should provide decent results.

"Isolations and direct ab work are both sub optimal to the point of being pointless in natural trainees" please show me your sources that show how pointless isolation ab work is "pointless"

Also you don't need to keep mentioning "natural" trainees, no one here is under the assumption we are talking about people on any PEDs, we are not all Fightingfan.

The reason I highlighted lifting form is that even those lifting for years can lift incorrectly. It took me 2.5 years (of cleaning 2x a week) to really learn how to clean, and 1.5 years for squats (squatting 2x a week). It's not always a couple day fix, especially if you were doing it incorrectly at the start and built up bad habits. I've run into many people at the gym who have been lifting for years with poor form, and it is hard to have them realize the potential damage they are doing to their body, and spending 1 day going over the lifts isn't necessarily going to help it.

Now the last part of what you said is interesting, do you have any literature that supports your claim that correctly performed isolation abdominal exercises directly results in anterior pelvic tilt? As with any exercise, it is ideal to work both the agonist and antagonist muscles, thus when performing crunches or doing other isolation exercises, it is important to perform exercises that work other parts of the core.

"But in terms of pure irrefutable scientific facts, heavy compound lifts are the most effective means of training for a natural trainee" do you have this literature that states this? I would be interested in looking through it.

[QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] This is completely and entirely incorrect. Natural trainees should not be doing isolations, if anything it's counter productive. Doing extra ab work will yield no better results than just doing heavy compound lifts which works your entire core in the manner in which it naturally functions; stabilising the spine. Crunches and situps and whatever else might make you 'feel the burn' are borderline useless at building dry muscle mass. You're wasting your time.

Ninja-Hippo

I've got plenty of anecdotal evidence that is opposite of what you think about isolation ab exercises with crunches and situps and core muscle building. Also, not everyone has access to areas where heavy compound lifts are possible.

The biggest problem with everything you said, is that many people don't perform lifts correctly. To my knowledge if you want good muscle recruitment from the rectus abdominus core area you need to squat a little deeper than what most people do, which means squats assist core strengthening very little unless you know what you're doing. This is mirrored with dead lifts and many other lifts as well. Yes you are stabilizing the core when 300+lbs are on your back, but you don't get as much of the "6-pack" rectus abdominus activation unless you are doing parallel level squats or so. When someone is doing crunches 90% (just a guess) of the time it's to work the rectus abdominus, which means they don't necessarily care about stabilization or other benefits from a heavy loaded compound lift.

I would say the biggest problem with ab exercises is that most people do them with terrible form, which supports the argument that crunches/situps/ab isolation exercises are useless. Because of this, it is harder to tell what (or any) benefits the body gets from it.

This whole argument centering around abs is kind of dumb since abs are made in the kitchen anyway.  If you don't have low enough body fat it doesn't matter how many squats or crunches, or hang-raises one does.

I have never questioned the efficacy of squats when it comes to building abdominals, and I know it was Gummi who responded to my original post and not you, but I stand by my point, that adding in isolation abdominal excercises 2-3 times a week will increase your gains, and definition.  I really don't see how anyone can argue that.  I know that I have had great personal results, and would feel pretty confident about my abs going up against anyone else's on this forum.

[QUOTE="EagleEyedOne"][QUOTE="KiIIyou"]Add in dips if ya already haven't =)lowkey254

[QUOTE="rocinante_"]

oh, and eat lots of veggies/fruits they're delicious n good for ya

and when you do eat carbs, try to stick to stuff with a lot of fibre n protein, like whole wheat breads or pastas and the like

Star67

yes I have switched to whole wheat bread and pasta. When should I start doing abb exercises? I keep reading that you should do them after you burn the fat from your stomach. I dont want to look like a greek god or anything, but I would like a flat stomach without love handles

That is correct, crunches and abs exercise dont burn stomach fat, you cant burn a specific spot of fat, so keep up your exercises, more running, less carbs, only water, add low fat yogurt to your diet too, etc

My method in the gym is to always set a goal for myself either daily or weekly depending on the goal.  

Daily goal today was I went in with the mindset that I was going to quit curling 40s and go to 45s.  Was a success.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Zlurodirom"]

I've got plenty of anecdotal evidence that is opposite of what you think about isolation ab exercises with crunches and situps and core muscle building. Also, not everyone has access to areas where heavy compound lifts are possible.

The biggest problem with everything you said, is that many people don't perform lifts correctly. To my knowledge if you want good muscle recruitment from the rectus abdominus core area you need to squat a little deeper than what most people do, which means squats assist core strengthening very little unless you know what you're doing. This is mirrored with dead lifts and many other lifts as well. Yes you are stabilizing the core when 300+lbs are on your back, but you don't get as much of the "6-pack" rectus abdominus activation unless you are doing parallel level squats or so. When someone is doing crunches 90% (just a guess) of the time it's to work the rectus abdominus, which means they don't necessarily care about stabilization or other benefits from a heavy loaded compound lift.

I would say the biggest problem with ab exercises is that most people do them with terrible form, which supports the argument that crunches/situps/ab isolation exercises are useless. Because of this, it is harder to tell what (or any) benefits the body gets from it.

TacticalDesire

This whole argument centering around abs is kind of dumb since abs are made in the kitchen anyway.  If you don't have low enough body fat it doesn't matter how many squats or crunches, or hang-raises one does.

I have never questioned the efficacy of squats when it comes to building abdominals, and I know it was Gummi who responded to my original post and not you, but I stand by my point, that adding in isolation abdominal excercises 2-3 times a week will increase your gains, and definition.  I really don't see how anyone can argue that.  I know that I have had great personal results, and would feel pretty confident about my abs going up against anyone else's on this forum.

The look of abs are 100% from the kitchen, some 110 weakling will have awesome definition if his diet is right.

That being said, there is no reason to do isolation work out until after you reach a plateau with squats, deadlifts, presses, bench presses, cleans.  

If you have the time to do the ab excersize, do another set with any of those.

Do my abs look good?  No, I eat as big as I lift, so there is no definition whatsoever, but my abs are rock solid and it is due to squats.

i would like to get ripped, too i'm slim and seemingly unable to build up weight naturally due to a high metabolism free yet credible advice neededBiancaDK

Eat more.  Eat as much as you can and do heavy lifting.

My method in the gym is to always set a goal for myself either daily or weekly depending on the goal.  

Daily goal today was I went in with the mindset that I was going to quit curling 40s and go to 45s.  Was a success.

CreatureRising

Curls are almost pointless.

[QUOTE="CreatureRising"]

My method in the gym is to always set a goal for myself either daily or weekly depending on the goal.  

Daily goal today was I went in with the mindset that I was going to quit curling 40s and go to 45s.  Was a success.

GummiRaccoon

Curls are almost pointless.

Push ups, dead-hang pull ups, and dips (no assist) all help. Just do multiple repetitions and always try to go beyond the max. It's not really a circuit routine, just some exercises that can help.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="CreatureRising"]

My method in the gym is to always set a goal for myself either daily or weekly depending on the goal.  

Daily goal today was I went in with the mindset that I was going to quit curling 40s and go to 45s.  Was a success.

supa_badman

Curls are almost pointless.

because your biceps are responsible for almost nothing and people that do curls end up with freaskishly disproportionate biceps.

Heavy compound lifts work your biceps as much as they need to be worked.  Every rep you do for a curl is a rep you could do on another more usefull excersize.

Deadlift, squat, bench press, press, clean, rows, etc are better and your muscles develop proportionately and you won't look like a freak.

If anything, do yoga with your spare time, it'll cut down on injuries.

[QUOTE="Star67"]

[QUOTE="rocinante_"]

oh, and eat lots of veggies/fruits they're delicious n good for ya

and when you do eat carbs, try to stick to stuff with a lot of fibre n protein, like whole wheat breads or pastas and the like

rocinante_

yes I have switched to whole wheat bread and pasta. When should I start doing abb exercises? I keep reading that you should do them after you burn the fat from your stomach. I dont want to look like a greek god or anything, but I would like a flat stomach without love handles

not sure when to do em, like i said, i'm no fitness guru, just work out casually.

i would recommend gettin an ab roller tho, great workout that not only works out your abs, but also your chest, arms, and shoulders too. keep doin cardio, stick to a healthy diet (this can't be temporary, you have to make a lifestyle change), and you'll start to see results

You dont need a special roller just find somewhere with some bars you can hang from and do straight leg lifts it will work the abs and core body like nothing else.

[QUOTE="lowkey254"]What type of "ripped" were you guys thinking of?psn8214

This kind:

Synoymns for "ripped" in this context might included "blazed" or "stoned," if the .gif isn't obvious enough. :P

i would like to get ripped, too i'm slim and seemingly unable to build up weight naturally due to a high metabolism free yet credible advice neededBiancaDK

I have the opposite problem, my metabolism is average and I can gain muscle easy. It's defining the muscle that I have trouble with. Some of the earlier comments seem to help though.

I heard running helps you lose belly fat more than sit ups.gago-gago

I heard running helps you lose belly fat more than sit ups.gago-gago

It helps but what really helps is eating properly (lean meats, veggies, fruits).

[QUOTE="supa_badman"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

Curls are almost pointless.

GummiRaccoon

because your biceps are responsible for almost nothing and people that do curls end up with freaskishly disproportionate biceps.

Heavy compound lifts work your biceps as much as they need to be worked.  Every rep you do for a curl is a rep you could do on another more usefull excersize.

Deadlift, squat, bench press, press, clean, rows, etc are better and your muscles develop proportionately and you won't look like a freak.

If anything, do yoga with your spare time, it'll cut down on injuries.

Except that earlier you criticized planks, which are an excercise straight from yoga.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]i would like to get ripped, too i'm slim and seemingly unable to build up weight naturally due to a high metabolism free yet credible advice neededNinja-Hippo

Hard gainers do exist...it doesn't mean they can't gain weight, but they do have to put in more effort.  It doesn't mean you can't become big or ripped.  Arguing that people's metabolism's don't vary greatly is simply wrong though.  There's also other factors like bone structure.  Someone with bigger bone structure is always going to look more massive even when they put on less muscle.   

The bottom line is that people do have different body types and genetics.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]i would like to get ripped, too i'm slim and seemingly unable to build up weight naturally due to a high metabolism free yet credible advice neededNinja-Hippo

I just bought an ab wheel from advice from another poster here, and I have to say after just one work out I can really feel it! I hope I get good results from it.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="supa_badman"] Why's that?TacticalDesire

because your biceps are responsible for almost nothing and people that do curls end up with freaskishly disproportionate biceps.

Heavy compound lifts work your biceps as much as they need to be worked.  Every rep you do for a curl is a rep you could do on another more usefull excersize.

Deadlift, squat, bench press, press, clean, rows, etc are better and your muscles develop proportionately and you won't look like a freak.

If anything, do yoga with your spare time, it'll cut down on injuries.

Except that earlier you criticized planks, which are an excercise straight from yoga.

Yoga for flexibility doofus.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="BiancaDK"]i would like to get ripped, too i'm slim and seemingly unable to build up weight naturally due to a high metabolism free yet credible advice neededTacticalDesire

Hard gainers do exist...it doesn't mean they can't gain weight, but they do have to put in more effort.  It doesn't mean you can't become big or ripped.  Arguing that people's metabolism's don't vary greatly is simply wrong though.  There's also other factors like bone structure.  Someone with bigger bone structure is always going to look more massive even when they put on less muscle.   

The bottom line is that people do have different body types and genetics.

physics is physics is physics is physics.

Every hard gainer is really just someone that doesn't like to eat/feels full faster.

Same. Oh well. I dont need a thread to tell me what to do...wolverine4262

Truth! 

*rolls up*

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

because your biceps are responsible for almost nothing and people that do curls end up with freaskishly disproportionate biceps.

Heavy compound lifts work your biceps as much as they need to be worked.  Every rep you do for a curl is a rep you could do on another more usefull excersize.

 

Deadlift, squat, bench press, press, clean, rows, etc are better and your muscles develop proportionately and you won't look like a freak.

 

If anything, do yoga with your spare time, it'll cut down on injuries.

GummiRaccoon

Except that earlier you criticized planks, which are an excercise straight from yoga.

Yoga for flexibility doofus.

I was just busting your chops, lol,  Got snippy awful fast though.

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Hard gainers are a myth. They're about as common as fat people with thyroid problems. People who claim to be hard gainers typically just have a terrible diet which they think is high calorie and isn't at all. "But I ate mcdonalds and chocolate and three protein shakes!" Big whoop, that's probably not even 1000 calories. Do a heavy compound lifting routine of three days a week and eat a lot of food to build muscle. Weigh yourself every week. Did the number go up? Good, you've found a good calorie number. Stick to that. Did it not go up? Then add 100 calories to your daily intake. Keep doing so until you gain just under 1 pound a week consistently. Gaining just under a pound a week will allow you to gain around 20-30 pounds before it's time to cut and go on a diet to define the muscle you've gained. It's very easy and very straightforward if you're consistent, sensible and keep track of what you're doing. "I find it hard to gain/lose weight" simply isn't reality. Within a slight deviation we are all the same. GummiRaccoon

Hard gainers do exist...it doesn't mean they can't gain weight, but they do have to put in more effort.  It doesn't mean you can't become big or ripped.  Arguing that people's metabolism's don't vary greatly is simply wrong though.  There's also other factors like bone structure.  Someone with bigger bone structure is always going to look more massive even when they put on less muscle.   

The bottom line is that people do have different body types and genetics.

physics is physics is physics is physics.

Every hard gainer is really just someone that doesn't like to eat/feels full faster.

Different body types exist mate.  I have a legitimate bodybuilding friend who eats, alright, but not particularly great, and gets insane gains, for someone natural.  If most people were to follow this routine they would not get anywhere close to his gains.  Therefore they would be classified as "harder gainers" compared to him.  I'm not disputing the fact that the term "hard gainer" is often used as an excuse, but people have varying rates when it comes to thir metabolisms.  Someone with an extremely fast metabolism would fall into the category of a "hard gainer" because they have to eat more to get the same growth.

Started Walking/Running last year and while I have gotten in a lot better shape, I still have that last annoying layer of belly fat. Planning to try and stick to an actual diet this September and go to the gym more.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

Hard gainers do exist...it doesn't mean they can't gain weight, but they do have to put in more effort.  It doesn't mean you can't become big or ripped.  Arguing that people's metabolism's don't vary greatly is simply wrong though.  There's also other factors like bone structure.  Someone with bigger bone structure is always going to look more massive even when they put on less muscle.   

The bottom line is that people do have different body types and genetics.

TacticalDesire

physics is physics is physics is physics.

Every hard gainer is really just someone that doesn't like to eat/feels full faster.

Different body types exist mate.  I have a legitimate bodybuilding friend who eats, alright, but not particularly great, and gets insane gains, for someone natural.  If most people were to follow this routine they would not get anywhere close to his gains.  Therefore they would be classified as "harder gainers" compared to him.  I'm not disputing the fact that the term "hard gainer" is often used as an excuse, but people have varying rates when it comes to thir metabolisms.  Someone with an extremely fast metabolism would fall into the category of a "hard gainer" because they have to eat more to get the same growth.

the problem is you are using anecdotal evidence to argue against basic biology.  Most people are unaware of what they put in their bodies.  I've known people that were way overweight and complained that they didn't eat that much but when you sat with them the whole day they were eating like 5000 calories, it was just they were eating super calorie dense food and drinking a lot of their calories.  

Every hard gainer typically only drinks water and mostly eats vegatables.

Usually just dirty bulking dispells the myth that they are a hard gainer, because you can't undereat when you eat a few double cheeseburgers a day.

Repeat after me, the plural for anecdote is not fact.

God, I love smoking. Not even weed per se, just the act of smoking is so much fun. Rich3232

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

physics is physics is physics is physics.

 

Every hard gainer is really just someone that doesn't like to eat/feels full faster.

GummiRaccoon

Different body types exist mate.  I have a legitimate bodybuilding friend who eats, alright, but not particularly great, and gets insane gains, for someone natural.  If most people were to follow this routine they would not get anywhere close to his gains.  Therefore they would be classified as "harder gainers" compared to him.  I'm not disputing the fact that the term "hard gainer" is often used as an excuse, but people have varying rates when it comes to thir metabolisms.  Someone with an extremely fast metabolism would fall into the category of a "hard gainer" because they have to eat more to get the same growth.

the problem is you are using anecdotal evidence to argue against basic biology.  Most people are unaware of what they put in their bodies.  I've known people that were way overweight and complained that they didn't eat that much but when you sat with them the whole day they were eating like 5000 calories, it was just they were eating super calorie dense food and drinking a lot of their calories.  

Every hard gainer typically only drinks water and mostly eats vegatables.

Usually just dirty bulking dispells the myth that they are a hard gainer, because you can't undereat when you eat a few double cheeseburgers a day.

Repeat after me, the plural for anecdote is not fact.

No, I agree that "hard gainer" is used as an excuse, just like people act as though they can't lose weight when if they put in the effort they could.  Very very few people are actually legitimately unable to gain significant muscle mass, but these people would be classified as "no gainers" not hard gainers..  The thing is, I see this +food argument all the time on bodybuilding websites and it's pretty ignorant of actual science.  

The term hard gainer has developed a negative connotation, and so you get a lot of power-lifters who have no real medical expertise jumping on anyone who uses the term.  

There exists a bell curve of average muscle growth rate.  Looking at the bell curve, roughly 16% of the population could be categorized as "hard-gainers".

http://www.builtlean.com/2011/03/30/how-much-muscle-can-you-gain-naturally/

Here is a link to a picture of said curve along with a bit of information on it.

Essentially anyone who falls within that 16% would be classified as a "hard-gainer" from a scientific perspective...there is really nothing else to argue here.

[QUOTE="wolverine4262"] Same. Oh well. I dont need a thread to tell me what to do...psn8214

Truth! 

*rolls up*

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

physics is physics is physics is physics.

Every hard gainer is really just someone that doesn't like to eat/feels full faster.

GummiRaccoon

Different body types exist mate. I have a legitimate bodybuilding friend who eats, alright, but not particularly great, and gets insane gains, for someone natural. If most people were to follow this routine they would not get anywhere close to his gains. Therefore they would be classified as "harder gainers" compared to him. I'm not disputing the fact that the term "hard gainer" is often used as an excuse, but people have varying rates when it comes to thir metabolisms. Someone with an extremely fast metabolism would fall into the category of a "hard gainer" because they have to eat more to get the same growth.

the problem is you are using anecdotal evidence to argue against basic biology. Most people are unaware of what they put in their bodies. I've known people that were way overweight and complained that they didn't eat that much but when you sat with them the whole day they were eating like 5000 calories, it was just they were eating super calorie dense food and drinking a lot of their calories.

Every hard gainer typically only drinks water and mostly eats vegatables.

Usually just dirty bulking dispells the myth that they are a hard gainer, because you can't undereat when you eat a few double cheeseburgers a day.

Repeat after me, the plural for anecdote is not fact.

I dont think I have ever done that. haha. Various other methods....wolverine4262

I'd only just learned this summer actually. I'm more of a glass man myself. I've got one of these...

[spoiler]  

either of the two taller ones on the left could be mine; couldn't find a better pic unfortunately

[/spoiler]

... but I always wanted to learn to roll and I finally got around to it this summer. Bong's still my go-to, but it's a nice way to mix things up! :D

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

Different body types exist mate. I have a legitimate bodybuilding friend who eats, alright, but not particularly great, and gets insane gains, for someone natural. If most people were to follow this routine they would not get anywhere close to his gains. Therefore they would be classified as "harder gainers" compared to him. I'm not disputing the fact that the term "hard gainer" is often used as an excuse, but people have varying rates when it comes to thir metabolisms. Someone with an extremely fast metabolism would fall into the category of a "hard gainer" because they have to eat more to get the same growth.

lowkey254

the problem is you are using anecdotal evidence to argue against basic biology. Most people are unaware of what they put in their bodies. I've known people that were way overweight and complained that they didn't eat that much but when you sat with them the whole day they were eating like 5000 calories, it was just they were eating super calorie dense food and drinking a lot of their calories.

Every hard gainer typically only drinks water and mostly eats vegatables.

Usually just dirty bulking dispells the myth that they are a hard gainer, because you can't undereat when you eat a few double cheeseburgers a day.

Repeat after me, the plural for anecdote is not fact.

Yea agreed, i had a friend that was crashing at my place for like a month... he was half my size but was eating me out of house and home. Never seen someone eat so much and he was like 150lbs soaking wet.

And according to wikipedia "Thus there are differences in BMR even when comparing two subjects with the same lean body mass. The top 5% of people are metabolizing energy 28-32% faster than individuals with the lowest 5% BMR.[10] For instance, one study reported an extreme case where two individuals with the same lean body mass of 43 kg had BMRs of 1075 kcal/day (4.5 MJ/day) and 1790 kcal/day (7.5 MJ/day). This difference of 715 kcal/day (67%) is equivalent to one of the individuals completing a 10 kilometer run every day."

So in this case anectdotal evidence can be true.

You guys talking about restng metabolic rate and metabolic rate and weight gaining need to read up on a couple things.

Irisin and brown adipose tissue plays a large role in resting metabolic rate.

Sympathetic nervous system activation also contributes to resting metabolic rate.

Both of these are influenced by many factors, one of which is exercise.

Also remember in regards to lifting, there are always responders and non-responders (or people who may not respond as stronly to stress). A classic study looking at insulin response changes after an exercise program shows that some people respond very well to the training, and some actually get worse (that's the red part).

While this isn't directly comparable to strength training, it is still something to keep in mind, that every body is different and reacts differently to training and exercise. Also, this may indicate extraneous varaibles or external factors that can impact the validity of studies, which many be the case for many people attempting to gain strength through resistance training.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

Different body types exist mate. I have a legitimate bodybuilding friend who eats, alright, but not particularly great, and gets insane gains, for someone natural. If most people were to follow this routine they would not get anywhere close to his gains. Therefore they would be classified as "harder gainers" compared to him. I'm not disputing the fact that the term "hard gainer" is often used as an excuse, but people have varying rates when it comes to thir metabolisms. Someone with an extremely fast metabolism would fall into the category of a "hard gainer" because they have to eat more to get the same growth.

lowkey254

the problem is you are using anecdotal evidence to argue against basic biology. Most people are unaware of what they put in their bodies. I've known people that were way overweight and complained that they didn't eat that much but when you sat with them the whole day they were eating like 5000 calories, it was just they were eating super calorie dense food and drinking a lot of their calories.

Every hard gainer typically only drinks water and mostly eats vegatables.

Usually just dirty bulking dispells the myth that they are a hard gainer, because you can't undereat when you eat a few double cheeseburgers a day.

Repeat after me, the plural for anecdote is not fact.

Don't bother, he's claiming he's right because of "basic biology", when it's actually basic biology along with statistics that proves that hard-gainers exist and at a percentage that would be considered mathematically significant.

Completely mislead by topic title.SaintJimmmy

Join ze club :P

[QUOTE="lowkey254"]

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

the problem is you are using anecdotal evidence to argue against basic biology. Most people are unaware of what they put in their bodies. I've known people that were way overweight and complained that they didn't eat that much but when you sat with them the whole day they were eating like 5000 calories, it was just they were eating super calorie dense food and drinking a lot of their calories.

Every hard gainer typically only drinks water and mostly eats vegatables.

Usually just dirty bulking dispells the myth that they are a hard gainer, because you can't undereat when you eat a few double cheeseburgers a day.

 

Repeat after me, the plural for anecdote is not fact.

TacticalDesire

Don't bother, he's claiming he's right because of "basic biology", when it's actually basic biology along with statistics that proves that hard-gainers exist and at a percentage that would be considered mathematically significant.

It's pretty obvious he's full of shit. 

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

[QUOTE="lowkey254"] Once again, not true. I wish my homeboy were here to testify. This dude eats 7 meals a day and cannot gain without suppliments.

Optical_Order

Don't bother, he's claiming he's right because of "basic biology", when it's actually basic biology along with statistics that proves that hard-gainers exist and at a percentage that would be considered mathematically significant.

It's pretty obvious he's full of shit. 

Indeed.

oh, you mean that kind of ripped...

*walks sadly out of thread*

konvikt_17

I'm with you, bro.

/p>

I'd only just learned this summer actually. I'm more of a glass man myself. I've got one of these...

[spoiler]  

either of the two taller ones on the left could be mine; couldn't find a better pic unfortunately

[/spoiler]

... but I always wanted to learn to roll and I finally got around to it this summer. Bong's still my go-to, but it's a nice way to mix things up! :D

psn8214

[QUOTE="psn8214"]/p>

I'd only just learned this summer actually. I'm more of a glass man myself. I've got one of these...

[spoiler]  

either of the two taller ones on the left could be mine; couldn't find a better pic unfortunately

[/spoiler]

... but I always wanted to learn to roll and I finally got around to it this summer. Bong's still my go-to, but it's a nice way to mix things up! :D

wolverine4262

These days, I'm all about the bong (or, 'waterpipe', as it's legally supposed to be called). Just got a new one a couple months ago. Locally blown, high quality piece. I love it. I used to smoke nothing but blunts. Like, for years. Which is funny, because I also had a decent glass collection back home. Like 4 or 5 hand pipes, 4 bongs, 3 steamrollers, 2 "pipe-tobacco-style" hookahs, and one classic hookah (for shisha tobacco). I guess that's what happens when you work on the side, part time, at a smoke shop, to support the habit.