pic related. whats your take on this /fit/?

File: frankzane.png (240KB, 400x628px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 400x628px

i mean, check out what he looks like at 64

Is that accurate if you're natty though?

I already think that myself but coming from Zane, I dunno, dude was/is on a lot of drugs

i know /fit/ says bulking is a troll but its not for these same reasons

>>29068691
Man, Zane always had way too little biceps for his triceps.

>>29068682
he looks like shit

>>29068682
Zane is a tiny guy, 5'9 I believe and he was under 200 lbs. Yea, working up in tiny increments may work for him because he doesnt have much weight to put on before looking like a freak

I think it's legitimate to eat at a small caloric surplus and gain muscle slowly.

the reason people want to bulk and cut so heavily is because they want to see progress quickly, everyone wants it quick and easy. so you gain 40lbs and you think "fuck i'm beast mode right now I just need to cut and I'll look amazing". Then you cut, lose a huge amount of muscle mass, and think "damn I'm small now I need to bulk".

It's a constant cycle of two varieties of shitty eating habits that probably doesn't gain you any more size in the end than the guy that controlled his diet closely and bulked lean for years. plus you look like shit for most of your bulk and the first half of your cut.

>>29068682

Complete and utter bullshit and broscience.

File: 1397496357108.jpg (133KB, 543x778px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 543x778px

>>29069604
Everyone here keeps on saying that lifting is a marathon, not a sprint, we are in it for the long haul etc etc. Zanes advice fits in nicely with this. And I'm sure our natty king would agree

>>29069691

You dont lose a lot of muscle mass, since you didnt even gain a lot of it. Most of your gains were fat and water which bloated you the fuck up, making your delusional mind think man im fucking huge, im a monster, and then you cut and realize you were never big to begin with, just a bloated mess, and then the cycle repeats itself.

Muscle gains only come so fast. If we assume you can gain 1 lb a month of pure muscle mass, that's 3500 kcal (I don't know if that number is correct but the idea remains) you could then eat about 150 kcal extra a day, very controlled, and gain mostly lean muscle and very little fat.

Of course like the other anon said, that's very slow and doesn't show as fast. Plus, bulking on 3k calories is fun as fuark because I love eating.

>>29069740

The thing is, everything we know about muscle gain says that while trying to go as slow as possible works it doesn't result in you putting on as much lean mass as the guy who attacks the buffet like it insulted his mother - if you want that pound a month of muscle, you've got to gain significantly more than a pound of bodyweight. It just saves you a lot of time cutting down if you do things slowly.

The rate of muscle gain depends on how close you are to your maximum potential muscle mass per muscle. Beginners can gain the fastest and advanced trainees might indeed only be able to gain 5lbs of muscle per year.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/general-philosophies-of-muscle-mass-gain.html/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/whats-my-genetic-muscular-potential.html/

>On average, a natural male doing everything right will be doing very well to gain 1/2 of pound muscle per week. A female might gain half that or about 1/2 pound muscle every 2 weeks.

That's the average for the first year of training making that 25 pounds of muscle mass in 1 year. The next year might bring half that. Of course your rate of muscle gain doesn't suddenly get halved once you start your 53rd week of training, in the very first few weeks it's much higher maybe even double the average and toward the end it's going to be less than the average but you get the idea. For a total beginner just starting out he can expect 25 pounds of muscle in 1 year if he trains right, eats right and sleeps right. Rarely does anyone do everything perfectly, especially someone just starting out something new, so the realistic expectation is less than that.

>>29068874
Because fuck biceps

>>29068736

It applies to Nattys more so

>>29069740

>a pound of muscle requires 3500kcal surplus calories
>muscle building requires a caloric surplus at all

Kek

>>29068682
IronCurtis also says that reverse diet should consist of slowly increasing calories over a long period of time and monitoring weight change until you start to gain. POTEAACS (Period of Time eating at a caloric surplus).

He actively bashes on binge bulking - bro science.

File: 1393064443726.jpg (37KB, 352x450px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 352x450px

>>29068682
yeah, you can build muscle at single digit bodyfat %'s, and you can do it without gaining fat or excess water retention

>with anabolics

weird how he left that part out though, it almost makes you think he was giving this retarded advice to nattys

>>29071374
>based trash man saving the thread

>>29069691
This only happens if you're retarded and bulk/cut too hard
Like me
Fug ;___;

>>29068682
>quality muscle
wtf is this shit you dont measure muscles in quality you either hqve muscle or you dont.
frank zane never said this

>>29071341
>the human body freely burns valuable fuel to build muscle because fuck surviving
Go read a biology textbook