Most lifters are still beginners, Rippetoe Article

[Cratos]

Were the articles you linked conditional like this statement?

At the upper end of gains for a beginner, in their first year of proper training, 25 lbs is listed. 2 lbs/month, 0.5 lbs/week.

As well, age will interact with this; older individuals won

 

[Tosa]

Were the articles you linked conditional like this statement?

You could read them.

And they do make a valid point. We could worry about the accuracy of the numbers...I could make a sarcastic remark that about nearing genetic limits according to some of the charts given...but that's missing the point.

The real point is that there's a limit to how fast, and how much muscle a person can gain, and this even more true for those of us who are drug free, and not genetically gifted. This doesn't mean not busting ass in the gym trying to get stronger, and possibly bigger, and it doesn't mean to eat like anaeroxic with a stapled stomach.

But it does mean that at a certain point, more food, or more bodyweight isn't going to be a very good answer for how to get stronger, and treating it like it is won't provide very pleasing results.

 

[scoopj]

At the upper end of gains for a beginner, in their first year of proper training, 25 lbs is listed. 2 lbs/month, 0.5 lbs/week.

When my personal experience conflicts with something I read, I guess it's wise to go with what the "expert" says.:icon_conf

 

[scoopj]

We could worry about the accuracy of the numbers...

That's exactly what I was doing. The original statement that I quoted ("nobody, including a teenager, can gain more than 0.5 lbs/week of muscle") was bull. Nobody's agruing that there's a limit, but to try to calculate that limit without taking into consideration the subject, is absurd.

 

[enm4r]

___

 

[Tosa]

Is it though? If the discussion was about whether or not you could gain 2lbs a month or 3lbs a month, I think I'd agree. But my own, and other's anecdotal tell otherwise. When I was 20, I went from a very typical cross country/endurance runner type build at 135lbs or so to about 160 or so in 8 weeks of eating, sleeping, and working out. I only raised body fat by 3-4% (estimate off both caliper and electronic scale averages). I know it was closer to 65% muscle gain, but for arguments sake, let's say it was 50/50. That would still would be 12.5lbs, 3 times the rate given.

If we were talking small percentages, they're close enough to agree upon. But we're talking 200-300% not being terribly uncommon. Those types of gains are probably once in a lifetime, but the factors of age, previous training history, body type, all play a significant role. They seem to briefly mention but then disregard the impact those variables have.

How tall are you?

My guess is the reason for your gains being above the model is that at 135lbs you were rather skinny to begin with. Furthermore, when I'm eating to gain weight, or eating to lose weight, my weight will typicall jump by 1-2 kg, just because of their being less or more food/water in my system...if something similar happened to you, it could easily throw off measurements of how much lean mass you gained.

Although I would agree that the numbers given on those charts seem low. But it's not like I have a quality source that gives numbers that I feel are more reasonable.

But I don't really want to debate numbers. I just think it's important to recognize that when gaining weight, it's better to do things gradually, and that more food doesn't necessarily mean better results if the scale is already moving steadily upwards.

 

[Arpie]

I can't argue with anecdotal evidence, nor do I want to. All I'm saying is I think it needs to be mentioned, I've seen many training logs of young adults on the stronglifts SS sub-forum and on tnation who have packed on massive amounts of weight (with a lot of fat). Just think for the pursuit of strength, health does play a part.

 

[miaou]

I just went to bed and I come back... and this discussion is back on track? WTF?

*is disappoint*

 

[miaou]

Oh well, here we go.

I really have to agree with enm4r's point. There are tons of variables not taken into account by people who insist on generic limits to muscle gains. In terms of research, you have all the studies examining what is the max limit of protein you can eat per day before you start pissing the excess down the toilet, and they usually come anywhere between 1-1.6gr/kg LBM (or even less, but 1.6 being very rare). But the variables of age, training experience, starting LBM-to-height ratio, exact training schedule, etc, are not accurately accounted for and it is very logical to assume they might make a very significant difference.


EDIT: I think it's pretty obvious from my posts that I am all for putting all the available scientific data into the best possible practical use, but one must also evaluate them to see to what degree they can be generalized/relied upon for practical application.

 

[enm4r]

___

 

[yocan]

5'11''. I could sprint a 5k but could barely bench 100lbs. I realize I went from really fucking skinny, to just skinny.

I'll agree with that there was a bad point in my life where I weighed 178, at the end of the crucible in boot camp. 4 weeks later I weighed 213. I was still skinny/abs and so on. I figure 8 lbs of that was water weight but even then.... I gained 6 lbs a week... oh wait one week I straight up gained 11 lbs.

213 at 6'5" is still lightly built on my frame, at 225 (current) I'm still light.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Ok so I go to work out come back to find naked men and a religious discussion brewing in the once healthy thread plus I might just be high, but did someone call rip a nazi?



Ps congrats on the blue belt knight, commence talking shit on white belts you earned it

Thank you, James! Now I've earned my Sherdog Blue Belt, my BJJ one will be easy!:icon_chee

Now to find WB's to abuse...:icon_twis

 

[KnightTemplar]

I just went to bed and I come back... and this discussion is back on track? WTF?

*is disappoint*

We could'nt keep the discussion on comparative theology going without you, brother.

 

[Origins]

It's bogus to insist on an exact figure for the upper limit of LBM gain for anybody (teenagers, beginners, drastically underweight people, and genetic freaks included), then, when confronted with conflicting evidence, to say that the exact number doesn't matter.

Yes, there is a limit to how quickly each individual can gain. No, I don't think that number is the same for everybody. In my opinion it is pretty useless to assert an exact number. But still some people insist on an exact number. The whole feud between Rippetoe and McDonald back in March is an example that comes to mind. Lyle just could not accept that the generic limit he thought he knew was wrong. He actually accused Rip at one point of lying about Zach's body-fat testing (as well as lying about his squat numbers, before Rip posted video proof). The fact is that a limit of 0.5 pounds per week might be accurate for most people, but for drastically underweight trainees, beginners, teenagers, and of course your run-of-the-mill genetic freaks, the number just doesn't hold water.

 

[James Fuller]

It's bogus to insist on an exact figure for the upper limit of LBM gain for anybody (teenagers, beginners, drastically underweight people, and genetic freaks included), then, when confronted with conflicting evidence, to say that the exact number doesn't matter.

Yes, there is a limit to how quickly each individual can gain. No, I don't think that number is the same for everybody. In my opinion it is pretty useless to assert an exact number. But still some people insist on an exact number. The whole feud between Rippetoe and McDonald back in March is an example that comes to mind. Lyle just could not accept that the generic limit he thought he knew was wrong. He actually accused Rip at one point of lying about Zach's body-fat testing (as well as lying about his squat numbers, before Rip posted video proof). The fact is that a limit of 0.5 pounds per week might be accurate for most people, but for drastically underweight trainees, beginners, teenagers, and of course your run-of-the-mill genetic freaks, the number just doesn't hold water.

Understandable but from my recall that table came in when a 35 year old told us he gained over 10 lbs of muscle in extremely short issue. Sure it might be arbitarily low, but when you are dealing with a 400% increase that is no longer in the realm of ANYTHING realistic no matter how low the numbers were to begin with. Take in to account that a 35 year old, no matter how daisy fresh is simply not producing the amount of HGH and growth hormones to maintain that pace you see the impossability for that DEGREE of overshot without AAS.

 

[Origins]

Understandable but from my recall that table came in when a 35 year old told us he gained over 10 lbs of muscle in extremely short issue. Sure it might be arbitarily low, but when you are dealing with a 400% increase that is no longer in the realm of ANYTHING realistic no matter how low the numbers were to begin with. Take in to account that a 35 year old, no matter how daisy fresh is simply not producing the amount of HGH and growth hormones to maintain that pace you see the impossability for that DEGREE of overshot without AAS.

I believe scoopj that more than 1 pound of that 10 was probably muscle. Certainly some of that could be water, fat, or whatever. But I have to think that at least 1 of the 10 pounds he gained, while properly strength training, was muscle.

But I'm not just talking about that particular instance. There are loads of people who have defied the number of 0.5 pounds/week. Loads. And to just disregard all of that evidence because it doesn't fit your original hypothesis seems way narrow-minded to me.

 

[Jim J]

This is not something I've looked into, so I am only using my common sense here and please feel free to provide sources in order to enlighten me. But..!

Here is what makes my common sense tingle: Who cares how many fat cells you have? If you are eating more than you are burning you will increase your body fat, regardless of how many fat cells you've got. Why on earth would you worry weather you have a whole lot of average-sized fat cells, or a few less but bigger fat cells, since the total amount of fat would be the same?

My common sense also protests the notion that more fat cells predispose you to being a fat turd. Habits that result in you eating more than you burn predispose you to being a fat turd (and that includes eating shitty kind's of food in disproportionate amounts of the calories you burn from your life-style and amount of exercise). It doesn't make much sense that if you are on x amount of calories surplus and have many fat cells you will get fatter than if you eat the same food but have less fat cells. Everything else (besides specific organic anomalies) sounds just like an excuse not to get off your ass ("oh I was fat as a kid, so I have more fat cells, so now I can't lose weight any more" spoken with a lisp).

To put simply: being a fat turd predisposes you to being a fat turd. And, seeing as your behavioral habits while you are young predispose you to your behavioral habits when you're a grownup, being a fat turd when you are young predisposes you to being a fat turd when you're an adult (and, obviously, you could still change it anytime you gather enough willpower and discipline). Why is there a need to complicate things further?

Your post sounds suspiciously close to an assertion, but again, feel free to prove me wrong, you will be doing me a favor by educating me.

I don't have any source but I remember reading an article on the subject a while back. What I got from it was that fat cells can only get so small. If you have been obese your whole live and have more cells than normal, it will be harder to get down to a very low body fat percentage. I'm not sure how much real science is behind any of it though.

 

[MASShole]

Fat cells don't really die - they just shrink. If you become a tubster, you'll have more fat cells, making it eventually harder to be shredded.

 

[booher]

This was a refreshing read. The article....not the thread.

 

[scoopj]

Understandable but from my recall that table came in when a 35 year old told us he gained over 10 lbs of muscle in extremely short issue. Sure it might be arbitarily low, but when you are dealing with a 400% increase that is no longer in the realm of ANYTHING realistic no matter how low the numbers were to begin with. Take in to account that a 35 year old, no matter how daisy fresh is simply not producing the amount of HGH and growth hormones to maintain that pace you see the impossability for that DEGREE of overshot without AAS.

Who said anything about 10 lbs of muscle? Here is what I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arpie
"There is a maximum cap on the amount of muscle a person (even a teen) can pack on (something like 1/2 a pound a week with a 500 kcal surplus each day)."

My reply:

"This is a garbage statistic. I'm 35 and have put on 10 lbs in the last 2 weeks and I promise you more than 1 pound of that was muscle."