Comments on: General Philosophies of Muscle Mass Gain

By: TCO

TCO — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:52:42 +0000

How about not doing little bulk and diet phases, but just running at some reasonable male appearance level (10%) and just allowing weight to creep up say a pound a month (would be 12 pounds in a year). Maybe watching bf% and waist size and adjusting after a few months if there is evidence that muscle gain is slower/faster than expected. (And strength gains allow some proxy to show muscle gain, no)?

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:05:44 +0000

I spotted a correction, Lyle:

On #4, a 170lb male starting at 10% bf could gain 24 lbs in 24 weeks (12 muscle, 12 fat) before reaching 15% bf, not 16 weeks/16 lb (8/8).

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:19:20 +0000

I understand the importance of 2 weeks of maintenance CALORIES after dieting, but does this mean you cannot or should not enter the beginning stages of a gaining PROGRAM (which usually start off with submaximal loads anyway), so that way you get the best of both worlds….you still are able to normalize hormones with 2 weeks at maintenance calories, but you are timing it perfectly so that by the time you starting hitting new PRs, you begin your surplus since you wont be gaining much anyway during the 2 week submaximal period…

By: lylemcd

lylemcd — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:29:05 +0000

In the context of the comment above, what I mean is that you wouldn’t try to do one straight 16 week cycle of training where you try to push up poundages and work yourself to death the entire time. Rather, it’d be better broken into

2 weeks easy build up to 6 weeks gaining
2 weeks easy build up to 6 weeks gaining

Rather than the typical gym rat approach of ‘try to bust my nuts for 16 weeks straight and get burnt out and injured’. Bodybuilders, for the most part haven’t really embraced any sort of periodization schemes (there are a handfulf of exceptions), at some point in the near future I’ll write something more detailed about this.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:05:52 +0000

What do you mean when you say should be broken up into at least two separate training blocks? for the 16 weeks of gaining? I think i have an idea of periodization of maybe strength vs hypertrophy or something along the lines, but just wondering if you could direct me to an article which you specify this during an offseason/muscle building phase. Gracias.

By: Visaria

Visaria — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 10:52:42 +0000

The possible gain of 24-26 pounds of LBM (0.5 a week x 52) doesn’t take into account the periods of time spent during the year dieting off the accumulated fat. I would presume that you wouldn’t be gaining muscle during these periods these periods (perhaps a quarter of the year???) . Hence the amount of possible muscle gained would be somewhat lower than the 24-26 lbs quoted.

By: Dan Moore

Dan Moore — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:56:44 +0000

I’m glad you spelled out that last point as many confuse this issue, contractile protein accrual vs. whole mixed muscle accrual

By: admin

admin — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:07:43 +0000

When I say ‘gain 1 lb of muscle’ that means 1 lb actual lean body mass. That includes roughly 100-120 grams of actual contractile protein, water, glycogen, etc. that all goes into that one pound of muscle. Make sense? A one pound gain of visible muscle mass contains 100-120 grams of actual protein and everything else contributing to that pound.

What I’m NOT saying is that you’re gaining an actual one pound (454 grams) of contractile tissue. That would represent about 4 pounds of actual muscle gained (454 / 120 = ~4). Because 4 pounds of actual muscle would contain about that many grams of contractile protein.

As well, my comment about muscle mass not being the same as lean body mass was more referring to the fact that lean body mass includes things like water, bone, organs, glycogen and a lot of stuff that isn’t actual contractile tissue.

Hope that makes sense
Lyle

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:49:17 +0000

Lyle,

In your article, you say, “with glycogen loading or creatine you can increase lean body mass (not the same as muscle mass) fairly rapidly but beyond that, skeletal muscle actually grows fairly slowly.” I’m trying to align your definitions with the following information from an online article by John Berardi: “a 200 pound male with 15% body fat has 170 pounds of total lean body mass. About half of that (85 pounds) is muscle mass, and about 80% of that (68 pounds) is water, leaving 17 pounds of muscle protein.” For example, you say, in your post of December 5th, 2008 7:26 pm, “First year, you might see 20-25 lbs in a male trainee doing it right. Second year perhaps half that (10-12 pound more). Third year, half again (5-6 pounds).” I assume you are using the term “muscle mass” the same way Berardi uses it. These gains include water retained in the muscle cells. I say that because, if you use “muscle mass” to mean actual skeletal muscle tissue (what Berardi refers to as “muscle protein”), that would suggest that the person gaining 20-25 lbs of muscle tissue was gaining 100-125 lbs of muscle mass, which can’t be right. If you could clarify, I would appreciate it. I find your articles worth reading.

By: admin

admin — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:26:08 +0000

26 pounds only applies to newbies.

as folks get more well trained, muscle gains slow down. First year, you might see 20-25 lbs in a male trainee doing it right. Second year perhaps half that (10-12 pound more). Third year, half again (5-6 pounds). At that point (about 40 lbs lean body mass gained), you’re near your genetic limits and you’ll be fighting to significant amounts much past that.

Lyle