nah, you do so based on yours. there are countless people here getting stronger without gaining weight. basically what you say is true for elite level strength athletes and no one else.

if you can't get stronger without gaining weight, you're doing something wrong. or somehow you are way further along than you think you are and just have absurdly low genetic potential.

There are tons of examples of people doing SS for a while, getting stuck, being told they are not eating enough, then resuming progress when they start eating a lot more.

I'm amazed you disagree with this point.

You really think that there are not a hell of a lot more people who gained weight doing SS than didn't?

You have to realize your experience of making sick gains while only gaining 5 pounds or whatever is very rare.


I mean obviously someone who is completely untrained can make some progress without gaining weight, but that typically will not last long, and they can go way way farther if they start eating at a surplus.

i made tons of strength gains in the last couple of years without gaining any size, then over the last few months i've been on a surplus, because i finally hit a sticking point. blah blah blah kettletarding not ss blah blah blah but w/e. i help a couple mma fighters with their s&c programs and they have to stay in weight classes, and they have gained incredible amounts of strength while staying virtually the same size, despite being good athletes they are pretty noob as far as strength training. at some point your progress will slow/stop but that point is a little ways down the road for most people. not like a beginner who squats 155x5 can't gain any strength without adding body weight. its much much easier to maintain some sort of linear progression when you are eating at a surplus obv but not mandatory.

i don't. i addressed it. that wasn't your point, as previously stated. they could switch to intermediate programming and make progress without gaining weight, which is what you seem to disagree with.

irrelevant

i wasn't completely untrained anyway.

it's like you think intermediate programming and beyond doesn't exist.

Is it normal to be eating at maintenance as an intermediate?

maybe you would still be gaining weight if you were amazingly underweight to start and gained weight slowly (not a bad idea by any means). but if you were only moderately underweight or overweight to start your novice training, you would likely be either at or above your "desired" bodyweight by the time you needed intermediate programming, in which case you'd not be eating at a surplus any more.

Maybe you're right after all and I'm the one overgeneralizing.

I stalled absurdly early on SS when I was eating on a small surplus... I can't remember specific weights but like 155 bench and significantly sub-200 squats and everything else proportional to that. I'm not sure if TMing would have worked better but either way it just seems kind of absurd at that stage.

Whereas eating a ****-ton I did just fine up to like 275 squats when I started dieting.

Maybe it is true that everyone or almost everyone can progress on intermediate training without a surplus but it really seems highly inefficient in many cases...to the point where taking a "surplus optional" position is unrealistic, if technically correct.

i imagine your small surplus approach would have worked, just more slowly. you'd do multiple resets, pass old plateaus, slowly gain weight, etc. there's no doubt increasing the surplus gets the job of building strength done faster, but i doubt it was your only option.

and i'm not taking a "surplus optional" position. skinny people should eat and should not have an option (whether they eat a 500 or 1500 calorie/day surplus is a discussion). if you are no longer skinny, you don't NEED a surplus to progress, which was the essence of soulman's question.

side note:

285 at 12%? That is very advanced trolling.

his goal is to hold more lbm at 5'11" than brock lesnar at 6'3".

starting to think his whole forum is a big level.

Good discussion. I don't think I want to gain a lot more weight on intermediate programming after cutting (currently 206 lbs at 21ish BF %, want to get down to 12-13 and stay there), but I dunno for sure.

It's rather obvious that strength can be made without significant increase in body mass just by looking at the Olympic lightweight lifters e.g. This means that factors like neural adaption and myofibrillar hypertrophy (yes I checked the name in PPST) must be factors rather than the traditional excess energy-driven approach.

Starting at maintenance with excess calories on mon/fri sounds look a good baseline plan then.

lol mm

Didn't I get ridiculed for like 20 pages straight in a single thread for making basically the same non-gluttonly argument a few months ago???

Just because something works doesn't mean it's a good idea when there's another approach which is way more effective.

I was actually just about to come here and ask about eating on the beginner SS program vs eating on intermediate programming.


It hasn't been exactly answered but it's close enough. Hm

The entire subject so far is ignoring the fact most people want to get bigger.

Right? Isn't that what happens after you reach a desired bf%? The next goal is usually to get bigger while maintaining the same body fat, or do another bulk+cut cycle which just gets you bigger than you were the previous time your were at said bf%.


My question had to do more with someone who was really skinny and not interested in bulking, just doing slower more lean gaining and when intermediate programming vs lower volume SS would be effective.

so I found out yesterday much to my surprise that my city has a Crossfit affiliate. I'm not qualified to judge the quality of the outfit...here's the website: http://qccrossfit.com/ any thoughts?

i'm pretty sure you were first arguing that cardio was more necessary than strength and then changed your stance to 'but big guys aren't healthy', which is just trolling so you can keep your argument up.

looks rofl horrible

I found one "ME" type workout "Find your max Push Jerk in 10m". lol wut? By the time I finish warming up I may get two attempts in. I'd just rather say 0 than attempt something so **** dumb. Then follow it with box jumps.

ETA: They claim to follow the main site, which sucks, but then they take out all the strength work. Most of the intelligentsia favors adding more strength work than main site, not less. Its ******ed. Doing metcons to get better at metcons is probably the worst way to get gooder at fagcon. Getting really strong has a ton of benefits including getting better at cardiotarding.

heres my local crossfit.

http://crossfit440.com/

critiques welcome, i actually know some of them bc they rent the gym i go to.

Of all the ******ation that goes on at queerfit, the work up to a max effort in 10min may take the cake.

Can anyone here confirm the notion that overall fast food is cheaper than shopping for food at grocery stores? I hear this a lot in terms of low income people being forced (in fact I was sucked into watching Food, Inc. yesterday) to eat unhealthily. Mental math in my head makes this seem crazy, assuming you aren't shopping at Whole Foods and you don't buy organic.

Would love link to a study if anyone has it.

i always thought it cheaper to buy and cook for yourself too. mebbe theres the issue of time esp for large families.

What is the study gonna study? Poor people suck at math and basic finance? They're life-noobs, ergo why they're poor as ****?