Lyle Mcdonald and Rippetoe go to war (ya rly)

[thedestro]

AA: The salient question is why are these type of gains "exceptional"? Rip would of course argue that it's just because people don't train and/or eat right, as in his experience such gains are not exceptional at all.

[GodsAngina]

so dreamer was right all along, you ****ers used to mock his fat ass. Look at you all now.

LOOK AT YOU.

Lol dreamer_ forgot to lift brah, he put on 90% fat haha.

[GodsAngina]

Apologies in advance about my laziness to dig for it, but someone please Cliffs me on the amount of weight Zach gained & the timeframe it occurred. Also, a couple questions: 1) What was his training & diet & supplementation like before he started the program, 2) what was his training & diet & supplementation like afterwards. I've seen plenty people gain sh!tloads of weight in short periods of time, but there are only a handful of circumstances in which this can happen. Really rapid gains beyond the "standard" rates are not impossible, but of course they're exceptional. I'll be back later to check on this.

Turns out you and Lyle are wrong about that one. No hate btw but the worst thing you could do is dig your head in the sand like that ******* Lyle Mcdonald did, I'd also advise you to strategically disassociate yourself with him now it's been revealed he is an idiot. Again, no hate Alan Arogorn.





Anways, now that this is all over, what have we learned?

We have learned that the field of Exercise Science, as it stands at this moment, is inferior to Bro Science.

We have learned that Rippetoe's gets you big and strong faster than any study says you can, because no study tested the average gain in LBM on a program of aggressive linear progression using the big compound lifts like Rippetoe's did.

We have learned that slow bulking, when you are starting off, IS retarded.

Just to add to this, something else we've learned is that the way people who know nothing about a subject (us on bb.com) decide what is true about it is we decide that whichever is the most palatable to us is what is true,

We'd LIKE TO BELIEVE we don't have to get fat, that we should keep our abs all year round etc, and that is why everyone argued incessantly that this is true.

[GodsAngina]

I have to be honest with you, Lyle McDonald is in no way an idiot. His social skills could use some brushing up, but he's one of the most knowledgeable people on training and nutrition in the world. Even if he turns out to be wrong about the LBM gains, to call him an "idiot" is way over the top here.



That's Rip's claim, but I'm not sure if it's true. On 3 separate occasions I've searched pubmed for studies about this sort of thing, and found nothing. However, I have heard people referring to studies measuring LBM gain on "high-intensity" vs "low-intensity" routines for novices - but couldn't find them myself.

I think one of the claims being made is that the rate of gains that people on STEROIDS make is like 1lb a week, so there's no way that natural guys on Rip's program could be progressing better than that. Rip's claim is that is just an assumption, and that novice progressions CAN be better than steroids, etc.

I'm not sure if there really are any studies in the literature about this sort of thing directly, or if it all stems from the studies done measuring the gains in steroid users.

I honestly think that he is an idiot, he just learns and regurgitates stuff he reads, he is like what almightyJad will become in a few years.

High intensity could mean anything, if anything it probably means more reps and more difficult endurance wise. One of the complaints Rip always has about exercise scence studies is that these peer reviewed published studies often don't even define their terms.

Again, there is no hard and fast rules for everyone as regards muscle mass per week gains, this is uncontroversial, because it depends on how long you've been training. The longer you've been training the less you add per week, that applies to steroid users as well, they can't just keep getting bigger and bigger forever. And who knows what type of programming they were using either?

[~Mase~]

after reading this thread i have come to the conclusion that almighty jad is an annoying ****ing moron who thinks hes superior because he parrots the knowledge of others making him look smart when he really is average



inb4 u point out my stats

[Fire8085]

People, calm down seriously.

The guy got fat, but strong. Whatever.

Let those guys settle their own dispute. They have obviously had a lot of tension between them for a while. (or maybe it's a big publicity stunt lulz)

[thedestro]

I'm not sure if there really are any studies in the literature about this sort of thing directly, or if it all stems from the studies done measuring the gains in steroid users.

You need to understand that the state of the body of literature regarding "exercise science" is pathetic. Studies are designed and carried through by people who have no idea what science is, or know next to nothing about lifting, or both. It's not the only field riddled with these problems, but it is perhaps one of the worst.

With this in mind, most of what we know does indeed come through nothing more than decades of real-world experiences and observations, and what you have here is just another example showing that it is possible.

[GodsAngina]

It's just what it is. Lyle McDonald is like a walking encyclopedia of research. You can predict when that will be useful and when it won't. Rip is a veteran strength coach. You can tell where Rip's expertise lies and where it doesn't.

Yeah but that's basically the problem, as the red guy above said, what he's learning is crap.

[Angra_Mainyu]

no he couldnt



lifting weights and eating is easy... Hell, its even fun



the only genuine challenge with weightlifting is the diet... Thats why overweight powerlifters are ****s

I'd have to disagree. The three main parts of weight lifting are to either get strong, get big, or get ripped. Anyone can get ripped, its not anywhere near as much work as getting very strong and or very big. How many weak, ripped, sub 180-200 pounds people do you see? Now how many people do you see who are very lean and over 200 pounds? How many people do you see who can squat or deadlift 700? Its much easier to just loose fat than it is to get huge or strong, or else there would be much more fat people, everyone would be deadlifting 5+ plates and it'd be extremely rare to see anyone under 12% bodyfat

[thedestro]

He wakes up every morning and posts like 10-15 of the latest studies about absurd technical sh*t on his forum. He just keeps reading and reading and reading and reading and reading and reading studies. He's OCD about it: once he finishes reading one study, he'll go and read the 130 other studies that it references. He legitimately has OCD about it.

Which as you can probably already see, means that that's his "bias": he will go with what peer-reviewed research says before what people "in the trenches" are reporting. And research tends to lag behind what the reports from "the trenches" anyway. The benefit of this approach is that when research DOES contradict what the people in the trenches say, and there are no "holes" in the research being conducted - then you know not to waste your time with xyz's bullsh*t supplement, which didn't do anything for a group of 50 people in a rigidly controlled study. The detriment of this approach is that in cases where the research hasn't been done, you're left to make your own assumptions about how things work.

It's just what it is. Lyle McDonald is like a walking encyclopedia of research. You can predict when that will be useful and when it won't. Rip is a veteran strength coach. You can tell where Rip's expertise lies and where it doesn't.

It's a shame that these guys are airing out their dirty laundry in public like this, but neither of them are "idiots."

This is almost never a good approach. It's certainly a good idea to keep up with the literature, but you cannot fall into the trap of believing that because something is published it must be true (or even that it has any merit whatsoever).

This is my main beef with many people in these fields--they have absolutely no idea what good science is. They don't read publications looking for flaws with the methodology. They don't spot the absurd conclusions, probably because that's the only section they read anyway. There's no double checking to see if the references they make actually support their claims (you'd be surprised, they often don't). None of this is done, yet the crap studies get published anyway. And once it's published, it's automatically true and correct.

Bad science really, really pisses me off.

[Angra_Mainyu]

This is almost never a good approach. It's certainly a good idea to keep up with the literature, but you cannot fall into the trap of believing that because something is published it must be true (or even that it has any merit whatsoever).

This is my main beef with many people in these fields--they have absolutely no idea what good science is. They don't read publications looking for flaws with the methodology. They don't spot the absurd conclusions, probably because that's the only section they read anyway. There's no double checking to see if the references they make actually support their claims (you'd be surprised, they often don't). None of this is done, yet the crap studies get published anyway. And once it's published, it's automatically true and correct.

Bad science really, really pisses me off.

real world experience combined with logic + good science > everything else. For the most part everyone is so different genetically as well as their lifestyle and training that the majority of articles out there don't apply or wont work for them

[GodsAngina]

It's a good approach for some things - nutrition and supplementation being one of them. When you're dealing with supplement companies talking about the effectiveness of their new kre-alkalyn product or of CEE vs creatine mono - it's very useful to go look up pubmed studies that show that kre-alkalyn is a bunch of horsesh*t, or that CEE rapidly degrades into creatinine in water.

Or when you see fad diet gurus talking about low-GI carbs being better for weight loss vs high-GI carbs because of lower insulin levels: you can find studies where they took people, stuck them in a hospital, force fed them an exact amount of calories each day, made one group eat high-GI carbs and one eat low-GI carbs, and find in the end that the results were the same.

However, maybe this is my wake up call that the same insights gleaned from the literature re: nutrition and supplementation just don't apply to training. I'm really interested to hear what Alan has to say on the subject though, if not just to hear what the literature shows.

Nutrition is a bogus field as well, it's so young and complicated that no one really knows what they're talking about. It's also very profitable if you discover a new 'secret' and together those factors make for bad science.

[alero]

This is almost never a good approach. It's certainly a good idea to keep up with the literature, but you cannot fall into the trap of believing that because something is published it must be true (or even that it has any merit whatsoever).

This is my main beef with many people in these fields--they have absolutely no idea what good science is. They don't read publications looking for flaws with the methodology. They don't spot the absurd conclusions, probably because that's the only section they read anyway. There's no double checking to see if the references they make actually support their claims (you'd be surprised, they often don't). None of this is done, yet the crap studies get published anyway. And once it's published, it's automatically true and correct.

Bad science really, really pisses me off.

You think these guys see an article in Muscle and Fitness and start raving about it?

Guys like Aragon, Hale, McDonald, etc. examine thousands of published, peer reviewed studies to learn and piece together solid information, and purposely look for flaws in the methods. You make it sound like they're two-bit infomercial hacks. There are a lot of fakes, but it ain't these guys.

I can't speak for McDonald, but the other guys will be the first ones to tell you they don't know it all.

I respect what Rip accomplished, but to dismiss these others as phonies because of this one instance is ridiculous.

[thedestro]

Or when you see fad diet gurus talking about low-GI carbs being better for weight loss vs high-GI carbs because of lower insulin levels: you can find studies where they took people, stuck them in a hospital, force fed them an exact amount of calories each day, made one group eat high-GI carbs and one eat low-GI carbs, and find in the end that the results were the same.

Granted I was talking only about individual studies, but again it's not that simple. There's enough data out there in the realm of nutrition to support quite literally any claim I wish to make, so viewing the existence of one contradictory study as proof of a given hypothesis being false is NOT good science. This isn't to say it doesn't raise interesting questions, assuming it was actually a good study (not too likely in the field of nutrition either), but understand that there is contradictory data for every hypothesis.

[GodsAngina]

Yes, but that's what the point of nutrition research is. To test out what "secrets" work and which ones are just fad diets and so on. You learn to separate the bogus people claiming bullsh*t "secrets" for profit from the ones who are making sense by whose claims actually work for real people done in tightly controlled studies, not just what the guy trying to sell his book says.

.

The problem is we are way to early on in the process to make any definitive conclusions about anything, a bit like psychology 40 years ago.

[thedestro]

You think these guys see an article in Muscle and Fitness and start raving about it?

Guys like Aragon, Hale, McDonald, etc. examine thousands of published, peer reviewed studies to learn and piece together solid information, and purposely look for flaws in the methods. You make it sound like they're two-bit infomercial hacks. There are a lot of fakes, but it ain't these guys.

I don't recall listing any names.

In any case, I thought it was very clear that I was talking about peer-reviewed studies, and not "Muscle & Fiction articles".

It's very hard to avoid bias in this. It's not unusual to see people willingly accept questionable data that supports their hypotheses while unjustly disregarding those that don't. You'd be suprised how much goes unpublished because the study yielded a negative result, with the authors years later admitting they were so discouraged they simply didn't bother to publish it, while forgetting that negative results are just as important as those to the positive.

[samsuperjew]

cliffs for reps

[ukero]

After watching his vid, his form sucked balls and his legs are not that developed either for squatting 345.

his form did suck it looked like a half ass good morning on some of those reps

possibly the dumbest post i've ever seen on the misc forums

[invain]

Thanks for the neg Amsterdammerr, lulz. I thought gays were proud of their sexuality.

[alan aragon]

Someone posted cliffs but they're wrong. Here are the actual cliffs:

A few months ago, Rip posted this:



THEN, Rip posted an "update":



So this is a TOTAL gain of 80 lbs in 26 weeks, 45 of which are supposedly lean, and 35 of which are suposse

Here was a picture of the diet of a trainee with similar stats:


The "10 oz" refers to steak
The "8 oz" refers to chicken breast

Zach apparently had a similar diet, but was drinking TWO gallons of whole milk a day. Holy sh*t.

They have never said anything about his supplementation, except that he wasn't using anabolics.

SO ULTIMATE CLIFFS ON ZACH

• Gained 55 lbs in 12 weeks, 31 of which are supposedly lean and 24 of which are fat, for a gain of 2.84 lbs LBM/week
  
  
• Then he gained a further 25 lbs in the next 15 weeks, 14 of which are supposedly lean and 11 of which are fat, for a gain of .92 lbs LBM /week
  
  
• No supplementation info is around on Zach, but he was drinking 2 gallons of whole milk a day and eating like 8000 calories a day
  
  
• Lyle's main study that he quoted showed the results of gains in non-novice lifters using anabolic steroids, and that Rip's progress would be better than steroids. Rip claims that novice gains on a linear progression ARE better than steroids, and that he's been saying that all along.
  
  
• Though he hasn't said this outright, Rip's implicit claim is that Lyle's "2 lbs a month" guideline is based on an erroneous interpretation of the literature, in which a program far less demanding of adaptation than linear progress + squats 3x a week was supposedly used to conduct these max LBM gain studies. He's said things like "maybe 0.5 lbs a week was demonstrated as a maximum for an NSCA-certified 'resistance training reference program,' but we don't run that program here, and ours is more demanding of adaptation and will bring more growth, and etc.

I'm most curious to hear a response to the last point by Rip, since I don't know what the literature has to say on the subject.

Lemmie preface this by saying that at least 10 people asked me for my take on this whole situation, so I'm gonna give it, and I'm not interested in trolls' input about it. Just being honest, so don't get mad if I don't have the desire to respond to ya.

Couple things. He doesn't look like 18% in that 1st pic, more like 12%. So 162 lb @ 12% = 142.6 lb FFM, 19.4 lb FM. In the final pic, he looks like he could easily be pushing the high 20's. I'd peg him at about 28%, but I realize my perspective is limited to what I'm seeing in these pics. So, 242 lb @ 28% = 174.2 lb LBM, 67.8 lb FM.

This is a gain of appx 32 lbs FFM. If this occurred in about 6 months, then that's fricking great. It's an exceptional gain; at least double what the average novice trainee should set his expectations on. Whether or not the 48 lbs of fat gain bugs Zach is purely up to him.

[BigMacMeal]

Thanks for the neg Amsterdammerr, lulz. I thought gays were proud of their sexuality.

u mad?

he negged me too but it makes me lol... guy looks like queer bait and goes round telling people how to bodybuild

[Amsterdammerr]

Thanks for the neg Amsterdammerr, lulz. I thought gays were proud of their sexuality.

u mad?

he negged me too but it makes me lol... guy looks like queer bait and goes round telling people how to bodybuild

Go cry me a river butthurt *******s

[BigMacMeal]

Go cry me a river butthurt *******s

said the homosexual dishing out negs for making fun of his rubber band anus

[Amsterdammerr]

Lemmie preface this by saying that at least 10 people asked me for my take on this whole situation, so I'm gonna give it, and I'm not interested in trolls' input about it. Just being honest, so don't get mad if I don't have the desire to respond to ya.

Couple things. He doesn't look like 18% in that 1st pic, more like 12%. So 162 lb @ 12% = 142.6 lb FFM, 19.4 lb FM. In the final pic, he looks like he could easily be pushing the high 20's. I'd peg him at about 28%, but I realize my perspective is limited to what I'm seeing in these pics. So, 242 lb @ 28% = 174.2 lb LBM, 67.8 lb FM.

This is a gain of appx 32 lbs FFM. If this occurred in about 6 months, then that's fricking great. It's an exceptional gain; at least double what the average novice trainee should set his expectations on. Whether or not the 48 lbs of fat gain bugs Zach is purely up to him.

Do you think he could have made the same gains if he lean bulked.
I mean how can we tell if its solely due to the fat gains, maximum protein synthesis stays the same right, it does not alter because of excess calories?

Would he have just gained that as well without the excess calories

[BigMacMeal]

do you think he could have made the same gains if he lean bulked.
I mean how can we tell if its solely due to the fat gains, maximum protein synthesis stays the same right, it does not alter because of excess calories?

Would he have just gained that as well without the excess calories

lol

n00b

[anonymous]

That diet might work if you spent every waking hour pinning tren, gh and popping t3's like pez.

Is that an example of the '70's big eating' that the Ripptards brag about? If so, wow. Just wow.

[BigMacMeal]

That diet might work if you spent every waking hour pinning tren, gh and popping t3's like pez.

Is that an example of the '70's big eating' that the Ripptards brag about? If so, wow. Just wow.

this

[JMB987]

I'm thinking about saying f*ck science and just trying the Rippetoe super bulk myself for like a small window. He has his guys putting on like 5 lbs a week, 2.5 lbs of which he "claims" to be muscle. And it seems like most of that is at first.

So by that logic, if in 2 weeks I eat and train hard enough I should be able to put on 5 lbs of muscle and 5 lbs of fat. If there really is a limit to how much my body can adapt to in a given time frame, then I'll put on maybe 1-2 lbs of muscle and 8 lbs of fat. Then I'll just cut for another few weeks and see it for myself.

One thing to consider before going on an "all-out bulk" is calculating the time it would take to cut all of that fat.

Example 1 (all out bulk):
-Lets say you put on 50 pounds in 20 weeks (2.5lbs/week). Lets be very generous and say 25lbs is LBM and 25 is fat. In order to drop that fat, it would take 25 weeks if you were losing 1lb per week (and assume you are only losing fat).
-Takes 20 weeks to gain, plus 25 weeks to lose that fat (45 weeks total). It takes you 11 months weeks to gain 25 pounds of LBM.

Example 2 (slow bulk):
-Gaining 0.5lbs/week, 2 pounds per month. At this rate, assuming you are training hard, your fat gain will be minimal
-Two lbs per month = 24lbs after a year


I'd much rather choose example 2. Yeah, my lifts might not skyrocket as much as in example 1, but I'd rather not have a high BF and when you take into consideration all the time wasted cutting, its not that big of a difference. Bodybuilding is something that has completely changed my life and to get a little faster results and the expense of looking like crap, I'd choose example 2.

Now if you just want to be a powerlifter and don't care how you look, then example 1 would probably be the better choice.

[doitbig191]

[thedestro]

Lemmie preface this by saying that at least 10 people asked me for my take on this whole situation, so I'm gonna give it, and I'm not interested in trolls' input about it. Just being honest, so don't get mad if I don't have the desire to respond to ya.

Couple things. He doesn't look like 18% in that 1st pic, more like 12%. So 162 lb @ 12% = 142.6 lb FFM, 19.4 lb FM. In the final pic, he looks like he could easily be pushing the high 20's. I'd peg him at about 28%, but I realize my perspective is limited to what I'm seeing in these pics. So, 242 lb @ 28% = 174.2 lb LBM, 67.8 lb FM.

This is a gain of appx 32 lbs FFM. If this occurred in about 6 months, then that's fricking great. It's an exceptional gain; at least double what the average novice trainee should set his expectations on. Whether or not the 48 lbs of fat gain bugs Zach is purely up to him.

I didn't bother to do the math since I didn't care much, but I would've considered this as perhaps the "worst case scenario", so it's amusing that such still yields amazing gains.

I'd probably give him a lower figure in the first pic as well, but 28% in the latter seems a bit harsh.