kevpants <3 Brad

ragg · 08-11-2009 12:48AM

He didn't look like he was struggling to make cruiser-weight only once he struggled & that was when he was trying to muscle up as he was criticised for being to weak - it might be easier to put on weight as a pro athlete but you only need the same training time - david haye doesn't train like a traditional boxer - he openly states that, there is no long cross country runs in his training. So training time isn't an issue

I still fail to see your point, if you are a pro athlete you can eat clean and bulk, but if you have a job the only way to add weight is to get fat

brianthebard · 08-11-2009 12:49AM

amacachi wrote: »

When was that? He was basically underweight when fighting cruiserweight and has said that several times, so he was always going to get the muscle on easily when he changed his diet.

Yes, this is the other major reason why people think you can make huge gains without adding a bit of weight, because the guys they know who did it were criminally underweight to begin with! Hayes' walking around weight was not his fight weight for a start I'm sure, so the first half a stone or more of his weight gain was probably just returning to normal. I've no links to back this up but I've read several times that the best time to start gaining muscle is right after cutting, which obviously is what he did. So that's two factors in his favour.
For anyone to say he did not 'visibly' increase his bodyfat percentage is deluded, did he post a shoe picture so that could be ascertained?

ragg · 08-11-2009 12:54AM

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes, this is the other major reason why people think you can make huge gains without adding a bit of weight, because the guys they know who did it were criminally underweight to begin with! Hayes' walking around weight was not his fight weight for a start I'm sure, so the first half a stone or more of his weight gain was probably just returning to normal. I've no links to back this up but I've read several times that the best time to start gaining muscle is right after cutting, which obviously is what he did. So that's two factors in his favour.
For anyone to say he did not 'visibly' increase his bodyfat percentage is deluded, did he post a shoe picture so that could be ascertained?

He had something like 21 fights at cruiserweight - that was the longest cut in history

He only moved up to satisfy his ambitions, not because he was he was underweight.

I think i need to stop in this conversation, we will never agree - if people at to train to get fat, why not? Its somethig I will NEVER do

brianthebard · 08-11-2009 12:58AM

ragg wrote: »

He had something like 21 fights at cruiserweight - that was the longest cut in history

As previously mentioned he would have lost weight for fights - or 'cut' it if you will. Upon finishing he clearly decided to start training to gain weight.

He only moved up to satisfy his ambitions, not because he was he was underweight.

I never said otherwise, I simply said he was underweight.

ragg · 08-11-2009 01:03AM

every fighter has to make weight?
! was hattin over weight for welterweight - off seasn yes, but that was his fighting weight - does that mean shuld have been fighting at a heavier weight? Does it ****

brianthebard · 08-11-2009 01:05AM

ragg wrote: »

every fighter has to make weight?
! was hattin over weight for welterweight - off seasn yes, but that was his fighting weight - does that mean shuld have been fighting at a heavier weight? Does it ****

Did I say he should be fighting at a heavier weight? Did I fuck. Did you inadvertently agree with my point about being heavier outside of the ring? Why yes you did.

Glad you're beginning to see things my way.

Conditioned · 08-11-2009 01:06AM

brianthebard wrote: »

As previously mentioned he would have lost weight for fights - or 'cut' it if you will. Upon finishing he clearly decided to start training to gain weight.

I never said otherwise, I simply said he was underweight.

This might prolong the argument or settle it

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtX_90ZzfPk

i'd have to side witht the argument that he was fighting well under his natural weight. He may well have been up to 210lbs when he stepped into the ring to fight as cruiserweight which has a 200lb limit.

amacachi · 08-11-2009 01:09AM

ragg wrote: »

every fighter has to make weight?
! was hattin over weight for welterweight - off seasn yes, but that was his fighting weight - does that mean shuld have been fighting at a heavier weight? Does it ****

He said himself several times that he felt he was nowhere near his potential at cruiserweight. Usually people cut to a weight and can put anything up to 7-10 pounds on before the fight to get comfortable again. Even with the weight he put back on Haye claims he never felt at his best as he was cutting too much to begin with.

ragg · 08-11-2009 01:11AM

I'm not seing things your way - You said haye was underweight at cruiser weight, I said all fighters are uderweight at the tme of the fight but it doesn't mean they add muscle by eatng cheese burgers. in fact with 6 months between fights (for a top fighter) none would dirty bulk :rolleyes:

With that said, i done think we will ever agree, you seem to think getting fat to add muscle is ok - i think its a foolish idea & you would only read it on the internet - each to their own, good luck

ragg · 08-11-2009 01:14AM

Conditioned wrote: »

This might prolong the argument or settle it

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtX_90ZzfPk

i'd have to side witht the argument that he was fighting well under his natural weight. He may well have been up to 210lbs when he stepped into the ring to fight as cruiserweight which has a 200lb limit.

All fighters dehydrate to make a fighting weight, ask khannie, he starves& dehydrates to make weight - does it mean he is overweight? no it competitive advantage

ragg · 08-11-2009 01:17AM

amacachi wrote: »

He said himself several times that he felt he was nowhere near his potential at cruiserweight. Usually people cut to a weight and can put anything up to 7-10 pounds on before the fight to get comfortable again. Even with the weight he put back on Haye claims he never felt at his best as he was cutting too much to begin with.

You quoted him after he moved up a weight division :rolleyes: - either way, he clean bulked - he didn't add weight by eating mcdonads, so i fail to see how im wrong

amacachi · 08-11-2009 01:19AM

Most fighters aren't underweight in a fight, only at the weigh-in. Some are underweight (relative to whatever weight their body "should" be at)in the fight but very few.
Anyway, I don't think anyone is arguing that clean bulking is impossible but using pro athletes as examples is bordering on silly.

brianthebard · 08-11-2009 01:20AM

ragg wrote: »

I'm not seing things your way - You said haye was underweight at cruiser weight, I said all fighters are uderweight at the tme of the fight but it doesn't mean they add muscle by eatng cheese burgers.

Show me where I said they add muscle by eating cheese burgers. The thing I did say, that you agreed with me on, is that fighters are underweight at time of contest, which was the least important part of the entire post.

in fact with 6 months between fights (for a top fighter) none would dirty bulk.

Hatton. Thought you were finished with this topic? Still waiting for that shoe pic of hayes btw...

ragg · 08-11-2009 01:24AM

1> Well thats the whole point of the thread, clean bulk V Dirty Bulk

2> Hatton didn't dirty bulk, he just got fat when he wasn't fighting, he wasn't trying to add muscle he was just a glutton

08-11-2009 01:28AM

kevpants wrote: »

Do honestly think I was telling people they had to get over 100kg?

I'm talking about the principle of adding muscle. The amount is irrelevant.

Yes I understand that the principles are the same...and it's great so many people thanked you for that post. My point was that the thread title has changed and to just calm down and ignore people who dislike your style of training. Forget about 'em.

ragg · 08-11-2009 01:29AM

amacachi wrote: »

Anyway, I don't think anyone is arguing that clean bulking is impossible but using pro athletes as examples is bordering on silly.

See kev pants posts earlier - everyne uses pro athletes\ celebs as a goal - so we can want to look like them, just not train & eat like them?

brianthebard · 08-11-2009 01:49AM

ragg wrote: »

1> Well thats the whole point of the thread, clean bulk V Dirty Bulk

So that automatically means I mean cheeseburgers if I suggest fat gain while gaining weight is inevitable, even if I already stated earlier in the thread that I don't think there's one way of gaining muscle? ffs, no wonder you're

d-gal · 08-11-2009 11:00AM

ragg wrote: »

With that said, i done think we will ever agree, you seem to think getting fat to add muscle is ok - i think its a foolish idea & you would only read it on the internet - each to their own, good luck

If yout think 'getting fat' to gain muscle is a foolish idea then your bordering on stupid. It's a bit obvious your quite naive on the subject. 90% of athletes will never 'clean bulk' (god i hate that phrase, it's stupid). Look at rugby players, majority of fighters, bodybuilders; they all require to do it, especially in the off-season. So basically you are calling Ronnie Coleman, Jerry flannery and Lennox Lewis foolish :rolleyes:
Oh and WTF is clean bulking to you? That your not getting fat? IF you are bulking you are going to put on weight, simple as. Bulking is not putting on a pound every 6months, bulking is putting on a few pounds a month minimum. My bulking program is a 8week program...yes i am eating 'clean' but an excessive amount of carbs will turn into fat, it might not show to the human eye but it's a plain and simple fact, you cannot put on 10pounds of muscle in a month.
If your trying to keep your 6pack and putting on a little bit of muscle bit by bit then you are not bulking, your hyperthrophy training. You can never say you are bulking.
So get off your high horse and quit with the BS of basically bulking is foolish, beacuse that is what you are exactly saying

corkcomp · 08-11-2009 12:03PM

d-gal wrote: »

If yout think 'getting fat' to gain muscle is a foolish idea then your bordering on stupid. It's a bit obvious your quite naive on the subject. 90% of athletes will never 'clean bulk' (god i hate that phrase, it's stupid). Look at rugby players, majority of fighters, bodybuilders; they all require to do it, especially in the off-season. So basically you are calling Ronnie Coleman, Jerry flannery and Lennox Lewis foolish :rolleyes:
Oh and WTF is clean bulking to you? That your not getting fat? IF you are bulking you are going to put on weight, simple as. Bulking is not putting on a pound every 6months, bulking is putting on a few pounds a month minimum. My bulking program is a 8week program...yes i am eating 'clean' but an excessive amount of carbs will turn into fat, it might not show to the human eye but it's a plain and simple fact, you cannot put on 10pounds of muscle in a month.
If your trying to keep your 6pack and putting on a little bit of muscle bit by bit then you are not bulking, your hyperthrophy training. You can never say you are bulking.
So get off your high horse and quit with the BS of basically bulking is foolish, beacuse that is what you are exactly saying

wrong side of the bed!??

whether you refer to it as bulking or hypertrophy training, there is nothing wrong with building muscle slow(er) and aiming to hold onto the six pack!

everybody keeps using examples or professional athletes and sports people to back up their assertions, but the bottom line is that the average gym goer who wants to add a bit of muscle without getting fat, can still do this if their diet and training is good ...

d-gal · 08-11-2009 12:50PM

corkcomp wrote: »

wrong side of the bed!??

whether you refer to it as bulking or hypertrophy training, there is nothing wrong with building muscle slow(er) and aiming to hold onto the six pack!

everybody keeps using examples or professional athletes and sports people to back up their assertions, but the bottom line is that the average gym goer who wants to add a bit of muscle without getting fat, can still do this if their diet and training is good ...

Never said there was nothing wrong with it, just saying it is not bulking! Plain and simple

corkcomp · 08-11-2009 01:07PM

d-gal wrote: »

Never said there was nothing wrong with it, just saying it is not bulking! Plain and simple

fair enough .. but i guess everybodys definition of bulking is a bit different ... I have seen so many guys on "bulks" eating way too much, mainly crap and not lifting heavy enough and often enough and they just end up fat .. and a lot of these guys who are clearly FAT still think they are muscular!