Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FatForward

The 200Lbs Rule

Recommended Posts

In Soviet Russia 200 lbs equals 100 kg, and the the same shitty justification is used for that hundred. Then those same people cry about their bitch tits and lack of libido.

Having gone from 25% BF @89kg to 10% BF 83kg at 185 cm / 6'" I can assure this shit takes time without drugs for an average joe. I also looked worse one year into training then when I started, btw. Yes, there was milk involved :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm, which guys at 70sBig are on drugs?

This guy is:

pisarenko_interview.jpg

He is famous for being disced (together with Kurlovich) having brought a bagful (12 thousand tabs to be precise) of Dianabol for sale to the world championships in Canada in 1985 :facepalm:

I bet Justin didn't tell you that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, no, I meant which of the editors are on drugs?

Justin made a post addressing this issue. All these people were emailing him saying "You know Coan and Pisarenko used drugs right?!!?!!!!?!111!!"

And he basically said "Of course I do, do you think I'm fucking retarded?"

Drugs were involved, but it does not really nullify the message of training heavy and eating a bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You also seemed to miss the first post I had on the subject--the amount of weight that looks good on someone is highly dependent on the size of their frame.  I think this is the point most people are trying to drive home.  You are so hung up on 200 lbs because of the 70s big article.  If it was written by Joe Fitness (insert picture of Snoopy here), then just how much confidence would you have in it?

 

Will most skinny guys look good if they add some lean mass?  Absolutely.  Slow and steady is the name of the game.  GOMAD is not slow and steady.  Slow and steady is increasing your food intake 200-300 Calories a week until you are gaining .5 lb to .75 lb (tops) a week, while putting in serious work in the gym.  At that point just enjoy the ride and see where it takes you.  There comes a point where you just have to chill out about the weight (gaining or losing).

 

Actually, I wouldn't find a 100kg benchmark unreasonable. After all, we're not talking about looking athletic, but about being huge. I do agree however, that recommending GOMAD to everyone under 200lbs is exaggerated. But let's not kid ourselves here. If you have a small frame and you really want to be huge, you're going to have to take some drastic measures. If I had a quarter for every time I heard "I can't gain weight, no matter what I do"..... At least GOMAD is guaranteed to work. :P 

 

 

and as I noted, it's highly unlikely that he is entirely natural, and the guys at 70s big aren't, either

 Bismarck may not be entirely natural, but considering that he does a ton of additional conditioning work and he's more than 50lbs over the benchmark, I don't think this disqualifies the message. It's entirely possible for the average Joe, 5"11 to get to 200lbs over time without ballooning over 20% BF, and he wouldn't even look that head-turningly huge by then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... but before steroids the # of athletes of any type over 200lbs was very low, and they usualy carried plenty of fat

I'd say that would depend on the sport and naturally the height of the athletes; that's exactly the point, that the number in isolation is meaningless. When I competed internationally as a junior (<19 years) in rowing (coxed four) all four of us were over 200 lbs and reasonably lean. No gear whatsoever, and we didn't even look like we lifted. There actually was some lifting involved, but most training was endurance/cardio; we did eat a lot, though.

For male rowers over that age it is not uncommon to weigh over 220 lbs (e.g. this dude: http://www.rudern.de/nc/nationalmannschaft/athleten/?nathid=101) and I would doubt that many are on the gear, simply because there's no money in that sport.

Since it depends on the height, someone clearly over 6 ft would probably have to aim for at least 100 or even 110 kg to look hyoooge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did GOMAD for 8 months only made it to 171, and after I stopped it took me less than a week to fall back to 150. GOMAD can get you the weight but it will come off if you are one of those fast metabolism guys. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, no, I meant which of the editors are on drugs?

Justin made a post addressing this issue. All these people were emailing him saying "You know Coan and Pisarenko used drugs right?!!?!!!!?!111!!"

And he basically said "Of course I do, do you think I'm fucking retarded?"

Drugs were involved, but it does not really nullify the message of training heavy and eating a bunch.

AC is for sure, even his fanboys know this

I'm not saying lift heavy and eat (within reason) is a bad message, I'm saying these guys are making a blanket recomendation using an arbitrary number, that's not a good idea

you can not make a 150lber into a 200lber in six months (the Idea behind gomad) without also fatfucking him, muscles grow slowly, in natural lifters

as far as the rowers, that's an endurance sport, a lot of that mass was likely glycogen storage

you're not gonna do that doing 3x5 workouts, at least not quickly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I wouldn't find a 100kg benchmark unreasonable. After all, we're not talking about looking athletic, but about being huge. I do agree however, that recommending GOMAD to everyone under 200lbs is exaggerated. But let's not kid ourselves here. If you have a small frame and you really want to be huge, you're going to have to take some drastic measures. If I had a quarter for every time I heard "I can't gain weight, no matter what I do"..... At least GOMAD is guaranteed to work. :P

 

Let me state the positions as I've seen them listed:

  • 70s big recommendation is just fine as is: Fat Forward.  (I don't recall anyone else in this position)
  • Any number outside of context is meaningless: me, LSG, Art, MatthiahM, wolfman  (there may be others)
  • Progressive measures provide much better results in the long run than drastic measures: LSG and I (feel free to add your name to the list with a me too)
  • Elite athletes are on juice.  I don't think anyone has disagreed with this statement--probably not worth bringing up anymore.

Of the couple of people on this forum I am aware who have tried GOMAD (Matthiah and Kevin), they gained weight but it came back off when they stopped.  One of the two mentioned a number of gastrointestinal issues associated with the practice.  I don't think either completely liked the look with the excess water weight (bloating) and fat.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't imagine the lifts going up any quicker because of the extra body weight.

 

Brandon Lilly, poster child for juiced elite athlete sitting at 300 lbs with a relatively flat stomach started as one of the really skinny guys.  According to his own account (and he does admit to being juiced) it took him years to get to that level.  The average increase was 1 lb per month since he started training as a teenager.  That's just one more anecdotal tick in the slow and steady wins the race column.

 

The only thing I want to caution is that drastic measures only serve to make you fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost forgot about this account by NickInJapan who sadly no longer posts here.  If I recall correctly he's responsible for our logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm definitely on the progressive gradual growth side as well FM, experience has taught me that lesson. You only get really fast growth for so long and that doesn't require anything drastic as far as nutrition, just a solid beginner program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

progressive gradual growth all the way, despite all the talk, there is no way you can put on a lb a day of 'mostly muscle' it's simply not biologically possible

many people tend to forget glycogen storage and intramuscular fat as a source of 'swoleness', and just plain bloat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

many people tend to forget glycogen storage and intramuscular fat as a source of 'swoleness', and just plain bloat

 

This right here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it´s just that my core is HUGE. It´s not a beer-belly at all. Simon, why are you so mean to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it´s just that my core is HUGE. It´s not a beer-belly at all. Simon, why are you so mean to me?

 

Because you eat salads

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ I agree. However, this is a statement from 70s big, an organization that is of the opinion that men should be big like their 70s idols. Considering that this is their goal, which as such wildly differs from what is normally considered aesthetic (e.g. v-shape and visible abs), I still think 200lbs is a nice benchmark. Although 200lbs is an arbitrary number, of course, as any number would be. 

 

This is what (70s) big men look like in my opinion. 

 

 

Bismarck du Plessis (6ft2, 251lbs; 189cm, 114kg)

 

tumblr_lyr6dzZEhZ1qkc9jco1_500.png
 

Tendai "Beast" Mtawarira (6ft1, 265lbs / 186cm, 116kg)

8989.2.jpg

 

 

 

Piri Weepu (5"10, 212lbs; 178cm, 96kg)

Weepu%20and%20Daughter-resized-600.jpg

They're all three elite professional sportsmen. The top two are South African - South African rugby is infamous for being infested with 'chemical assistance'. Yes, I'm going to be that guy. The third guy is playing less and less because he is too fat. It's a position thing, but he is too heavy. He, and many other Pacific Islanders, have trouble losing weight, because they gain so so fast. On one hand it causes beasts like Maa Nonu and Manu Tuilagi (google yourself), on the other hand it makes for a clear statement that your background and genetics determine your physique for a considerable part. I'm not saying you can't change it, but people simply have different bodies.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to remark that it's very common for internet fitness hubs to make bold statements like this one just to gather attention, instead of actually saying something useful. 

 

Plus, the obvious height issue. Sure it's been mentioned time and time before, but according to the maximum natural lean mass potential, according to Martin Berkhan (leangains), as a 1.76cm guy my maximum natural lean mass potential would be 76 x .95 = 72.2kg. I if where to weigh 90.6kg, my BF would be just over 20%. I don't want to have 20+ BF%, fuck that. Looking like a man or not, 20+ BF% is too much fat. Of course fat PLers and StrongMen will deny this, but then again, their fat is an advantage in their sport, not quite so in daily life. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jasper, StrongMen have to move with weights.  Carrying too much fat really kills the cardiovascular conditioning needed for the sport.  Besides, the sport itself has you doing stuff that will cause you shed fat pretty well while getting you strong--assuming you don't overcompensate in the kitchen.  Are there fat StrongMen?  Yes.  Are they as fat as your SHW power lifters? Heck no.  The demands of the sports are pretty different.

 

Besides, you stick in the light weight (<=230 lb) or middle weight (231-260 lb) divisions and fat people in SM are pretty rare.  You can't always judge a sport by the heavy weights (or super heavy weights).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jasper, StrongMen have to move with weights.  Carrying too much fat really kills the cardiovascular conditioning needed for the sport.  Besides, the sport itself has you doing stuff that will cause you shed fat pretty well while getting you strong--assuming you don't overcompensate in the kitchen.  Are there fat StrongMen?  Yes.  Are they as fat as your SHW power lifters? Heck no.  The demands of the sports are pretty different.

 

Besides, you stick in the light weight (<=230 lb) or middle weight (231-260 lb) divisions and fat people in SM are pretty rare.  You can't always judge a sport by the heavy weights (or super heavy weights).

Okay well I don't know too much about the exact use of fat in those sports, I just wanted to be faster than the counter argument that 20+ BF% could be useful in some cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, this:22447.jpg

Cecil Afrika, professional Rugby 7s player, 26 years old, 1.75cm (5'9), 70kg (154lbs). Because of his sport and performance, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd squat 2x bw for reps. 70sbig, I dare you to call this man not manly because he's far below 200lbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me state the positions as I've seen them listed:

  • 70s big recommendation is just fine as is: Fat Forward.  (I don't recall anyone else in this position)

 

Not entirely correct. I consider the 200lbs benchmark (which is the topic at hand) just fine for guys who want to be 70s big. I don't think GOMAD is appropriate for every guy under 200lbs, nor do I necessarily support any other recommendations in the article. It's only the 200lbs benchmark that I support. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The third guy is playing less and less because he is too fat. It's a position thing, but he is too heavy. 

That may be so, but how is that relevant for people whose goal it is to become 70s big? Unless they also want to play rugby at a World Championship's level, I don't think your average 70s big enthusiast would care if he was as 'fat' as Piri Weepu. 

 

 

Plus, this:

Cecil Afrika, professional Rugby 7s player, 26 years old, 1.75cm (5'9), 70kg (154lbs). Because of his sport and performance, I wouldn't be surprised if he'd squat 2x bw for reps. 70sbig, I dare you to call this man not manly because he's far below 200lbs.

 

Nobody denies that Cecil Afrika is an incredible athlete. He's just not 70s big... Usain Bolt is also an incredible athlete, but he's not 70s big either.

 

Of course you can't really have many really big guys in your Sevens team. But people like Frankie Horne ( 6ft, 231; 183cm, 105kg) would still be considered 70s big, I guess. 

 

cd0d7c8e8db04deaaaa34f96ab41e0b5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be so, but how is that relevant for people whose goal it is to become 70s big? Unless they also want to play rugby at a World Championship's level, I don't think your average 70s big enthusiast would care if he was as 'fat' as Piri Weepu. 

 

 

 

Nobody denies that Cecil Afrika is an incredible athlete. He's just not 70s big... Usain Bolt is also an incredible athlete, but he's not 70s big either.

 

Of course you can't really have too many really big guys in your Sevens team. But people like Frankie Horne ( 6ft, 231; 183cm, 105kg) would still be considered 70s big, I guess. 

 

 

You pointed them out as examples of 70s big men, I said why I think they're not good examples. And I fangirled because I saw rugby.

 

But yes, Frankie Horne would be 70s big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, I wonder really what's the obsession with being 70s big?  Just progress in your lifts and aim to make your mass as useful as possible.  If you can move the way you need to move at a big body weight and you don't feel like you are going to die afterwards, then chances are you're doing OK.  If you feel small, just progress naturally getting stronger and bigger a little at a time without some arbitrary target weight in mind.

 

For example, my goal is to get down into the middle weight category in strongman (231 lb-260 lb in the ASC/NAS).  That goal isn't because there's something magical about that weight.  It's just so I can put an end to the diet at a reasonable BW (15-20% BF by estimate) and focus completely on the sport at that point.  It's not because I'm particularly trying to stay over 200 lbs.  I'm pretty sure that if I hit 10% body fat, I'd shrink down to sub-200 lb BW at my current level of muscularity.  If I were to train for decades like a bodybuilder and progress to elite levels at that sport, I could sustain about 220 normal/235 bulked.  Thing is, I'm only 3-4 years in on this journey and I don't train like a bodybuilder.

 

If after a while of competing in strongman, I end up burning more and more fat and end up in the light weight division, that's bonus.  However, I'm not obsessing about body weight.  I only care about performance.  I only care about becoming a better athlete over time.  I personally could care less about being "70s big".  As I get older (early 40s right now), I care more and more about being in a healthy body by the time I stop competing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this topic blew up since it left my log. LOL

The two key things said above in this discussion are frame size and what people consider lean. I consider lean around 12% BF. As I said in my log when I was approached on this 200lb thing, .I got leaner but I still am not lean.

The other problem is many people assume they are leaner than they actually are and subtract 3%.

Bismarck may not be entirely natural, but considering that he does a ton of additional conditioning work and he's more than 50lbs over the benchmark, I don't think this disqualifies the message. It's entirely possible for the average Joe, 5"11 to get to 200lbs over time without ballooning over 20% BF, and he wouldn't even look that head-turningly huge by then.

I think if an elite athlete is not natural like that guy, it does disqualify the message for the average joe. I considered the average joe not taking chemicals and  average genetics.

I'm not sure if what you said is possible for the average joe. I consider the average joe having a medium sized frame like myself (7" wrists and 8.75" ankles). Since I consider lean 12%, I will split the difference from 20%.

5' 11" medium sized frame around 16% BF would be a large dude. Despite training and eating perfectly, not many average joes will attain that. Even at 18% BF, not many will attain that. A larger frame person it would be easier...but we are talking about the average joe.

The problem is many 5' 11" average joes will be at 200 at 22%BF...still a big guy. They think they are 18% but have no idea how hard it is to recomp those last 8lbs to really be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to say I heartily approve of all these exemplar pix of muscular men. :D

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×