Bulking: Clean Diet?

[guids]

Genetics, I dont know what your body fat is, probably sub 10% maybe a little over, or a little less, I dunno, lighting, water, etc have a lot to do with it. some people store fat differently, for me my legs get fat before my stomach does, but most males are not like this. Yes, I store my fat like a chick.

[Thremp]

guids,

No, you are not correct. I think you've been using too many caliper tests and leaving out visceral fat. I'd like you find a legit dude who walks around ~5% with water tests to back it that isn't a freako endurance athlete. Even most of them try to carry more fat than that.

Here is a chart showing 2-5% of fat being essential. Ergo my completely correct comment about some people not being able to get to 5%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage

You're way off base too in your random guesstimations. Many people store fat randomly and there are plenty of fatties that are misread by calipers due to "muscle belly" you've probably seen them in powerlifting.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
guids,

No, you are not correct. I think you've been using too many caliper tests and leaving out visceral fat. I'd like you find a legit dude who walks around ~5% with water tests to back it that isn't a freako endurance athlete. Even most of them try to carry more fat than that.

Here is a chart showing 2-5% of fat being essential. Ergo my completely correct comment about some people not being able to get to 5%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage

You're way off base too in your random guesstimations. Many people store fat randomly and there are plenty of fatties that are misread by calipers due to "muscle belly" you've probably seen them in powerlifting.

[/ QUOTE ]

water isnt 100% effective, nothing is but we have to basically assume that its close. You are still wrong, and I dont see how you can dispute this, but its very typical, wiki is not the end all and be all, Lance armstrong- 5% , some fo the strongest and best athletes int eh world, pro gymnasts are around 5%. You cited one source wiki (lol), and I posted several. 5% also isnt some magical number either, its not a hard line and people react differently when getting that low. 1 wiki link doesnt mean anything, some people may not be able to get to 5%, I never said otherwise though, some people dont like to have to do uncomfortable things. all I said was that saying its unhealthy for all normal people isnt right.

[Thremp]

I don't see how a referenced wiki link is any less reputable than the things you posted. In fact I'd say its far more reliable. I saw that chart you posted earlier to make sure I was correct. In fact if you actually read the references you'd see that it is referencing the exact chart you posted. I typically expect a higher grade argument out of you. This is somewhat pathetic. I don't want to hear random ad hominem attacks when you just want to insist you are correct.

5% isn't a hard rule of course. I'm sure there are a few people that can walk around at that without ill effects. But they are very far and few between. To suggest that everyone needs to be between 5-7% when starting a bulk is asinine and just misinformation.

Should I amend my previous statement to say walking around at 5% could be unhealthy for 99% of people?

Also, water measurements are much much more accurate than other methods such as calipers which ignore visceral fat as I explained earlier. It is a much higher grade test than caliper or measuring body parts and using formulas etc. I don't see why you are even arguing this. This is pretty much exact fact.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how a referenced wiki link is any less reputable than the things you posted. In fact I'd say its far more reliable. I saw that chart you posted earlier to make sure I was correct. In fact if you actually read the references you'd see that it is referencing the exact chart you posted. I typically expect a higher grade argument out of you. This is somewhat pathetic. I don't want to hear random ad hominem attacks when you just want to insist you are correct.

5% isn't a hard rule of course. I'm sure there are a few people that can walk around at that without ill effects. But they are very far and few between. To suggest that everyone needs to be between 5-7% when starting a bulk is asinine and just misinformation.

Should I amend my previous statement to say walking around at 5% could be unhealthy for 99% of people?

Also, water measurements are much much more accurate than other methods such as calipers which ignore visceral fat as I explained earlier. It is a much higher grade test than caliper or measuring body parts and using formulas etc. I don't see why you are even arguing this. This is pretty much exact fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

so if it is referencing it how is it reliable than? because obv the charts are different? Uhh.....I never said that water wasnt waay more reliable, its just not 100% exact, so pinning these hard lines down is tough to impossible. search any bodybuilding site for "ideal bf% to start a bulk", youd be hard pressed to find anyone that will advocate starting a bulk at more than 11% or so. stick between 5% and 10% is basically my whole point, bcause the less fat you have to begin with, the less fat you will gain.

[Thremp]

2 sources > 1 source

Yeah, I disagree with your whole point though. I think 8-12% is a much more reasonable and slightly safer goal. If you're on chemical assistance, your model is def preferable.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
2 sources > 1 source

Yeah, I disagree with your whole point though. I think 8-12% is a much more reasonable and slightly safer goal. If you're on chemical assistance, your model is def preferable.

[/ QUOTE ]


meh, ill disagree 2 sources > 1 source. But there are hundreds of charts out there saying 2 to 4 is esential, and that 5 is the cuttoff point. I dont disagree that 8 to 12% is a more reasonable goal, and much much easier to achieve, but I think that people will pretty much find that 10% or so isnt exactly what they think it looks like, and will need to get "much" leaner to achieve what they think is ideal when they look in the mirror.

[Thremp]

Agreed. Some people are shredded looking at 10% for a variety of reasons. Theres even guys who have abs at 14% or so. (Too bad their carrying their fat in a terrible way.) But looks factors don't really change where you should begin a bulk. If everyone got down to 10% before starting to bulk they'd be a ton better off. You just gain more fat when you are fat.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Some people are shredded looking at 10% for a variety of reasons. Theres even guys who have abs at 14% or so. (Too bad their carrying their fat in a terrible way.) But looks factors don't really change where you should begin a bulk. If everyone got down to 10% before starting to bulk they'd be a ton better off. You just gain more fat when you are fat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think anyone is shredded looking at 10%.

for reference mens health cover model = shredded imo



maybe our goals are different though, I want perfection, as damn near to cover model material as I possibly can get, 10% doesnt bring me anywhere near it imo, 6% does, or at least as close as my genetics will take me.

[Scotty.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how a referenced wiki link is any less reputable than the things you posted. In fact I'd say its far more reliable. I saw that chart you posted earlier to make sure I was correct. In fact if you actually read the references you'd see that it is referencing the exact chart you posted. I typically expect a higher grade argument out of you. This is somewhat pathetic. I don't want to hear random ad hominem attacks when you just want to insist you are correct.

5% isn't a hard rule of course. I'm sure there are a few people that can walk around at that without ill effects. But they are very far and few between. To suggest that everyone needs to be between 5-7% when starting a bulk is asinine and just misinformation.

Should I amend my previous statement to say walking around at 5% could be unhealthy for 99% of people?

Also, water measurements are much much more accurate than other methods such as calipers which ignore visceral fat as I explained earlier. It is a much higher grade test than caliper or measuring body parts and using formulas etc. I don't see why you are even arguing this. This is pretty much exact fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

so if it is referencing it how is it reliable than? because obv the charts are different? Uhh.....I never said that water wasnt waay more reliable, its just not 100% exact, so pinning these hard lines down is tough to impossible. search any bodybuilding site for "ideal bf% to start a bulk", youd be hard pressed to find anyone that will advocate starting a bulk at more than 11% or so. stick between 5% and 10% is basically my whole point, bcause the less fat you have to begin with, the less fat you will gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

this part isn't really true at all. im becoming somewhat active on bodybuilding.com. i posted a set of progress pics showing me at 5'11 185lbs and roughly 15%bf. the overwhelming response from people was telling me to bulk up as i have relatively little muscle (i did ignore the advice, and am shooting for 10-11% before i start bulking). if i wanted to get down to 5-7% i would probably have to drop down to around 165lbs and that is damn skinny.

i have seen countless other similar thread recommending others in the 12-16%bf range to bulk for a quite a while before they even think about cutting. from my understanding, you are a pretty experienced lifter though, and probably already have a decent muscle base to work from where 7% isn't going to make you a bone rack. i am generally reading the sections geared towards teens and novices. considering the physical state of the average 2p2er though, i think it is much more reasonable to be giving them novice advice that programs geared towards an experienced lifter.