nycballer, please start your own thread. You're banned from this one.

ty, jesus

FFS the eights in this title are nearly as bad as nycballer's rants

(just kidding)

thank the lord

OMG smiley 4 mod

Looks like it is time for me to step in and carry the torch...

Jdocccckckckckckckkckc

BTW KyleB recheck BMI. Half the kickers are overweight by BMI.

Kickers excel at only one modal domain. They lack fitness. And they probably have no squat.

wtf? Jeff Reed could drink Boodles with Glassmen all night.

the fat kids who can't do a pullup dominating health and fitness ahhhh the irony

and try to ban the kid who is more in shape than most here

seriously give it a rest, your argument makes no sense.

if you cant do a pull up, you aren't fit?

....

[ ] Fat kids who can't do a pull up

absolutely correct

Time for a real ban ainec

u know what this thread is missing? pics of my car:

"More in shape"

I'm pretty sure you have one of the worst aFFMI of anyone on the forum, purely because you're absurdly small.

whats aFFMI?

you say small the chicks say ripped

fit is a terrible word without qualification, but as it is usually understood by pretty much anyone in in a day to day context, i would agree that you are not fit if you cannot do a chin up

Small penis syndrome ITT.

Only a matter of time before the lambo came out! Who wins now? The poor fat people or the rich fit people?

So Soulman posted this Lyle quote:


I know Lyle is a diet expert and I am a diet peon, but I can't help but think he is making a subtle error here which is the same one that leads him to claim that any surplus over 500 calories a day is useless (I'm paraphrasing but he says something close to that, and it's really blatantly false.)

He says you need sufficient protein "but also the building blocks for the new tissue". And that's all he says.

Doesn't "the building blocks for new tissue" imply that you need to consume the nutrients that actually are directly used to form the new tissue, and that's it?

I mean it's not even clear from that idea that you would need to put on any fat at all...you consume x surplus of calories and it is directly converted to new muscle. Maybe there are leftover substrate molecules or something that become fat.

But anyway from my experience bulking at different levels of surplus, it seems clear that the caloric surplus has more to do with putting your body in an overall anabolic state.

When you eat a ton you recover from soreness and injury way faster, you increase your metabolism, you tell your body it doesn't have to worry about being thrifty with energy. All of this is hormonal milieu stuff rather than direct tissue synthesis.

Am I just being uncharitable to Lyle? To me it seems like the "building blocks" model of eating to bulk is just inaccurate and leads you to cap your surplus at arbitrary amounts like 500 cals/day because that's "all the building blocks you can use in a day" or something.



tl;dr Does Lyle have a misleading idea of the function of caloric surplus while bulking?

http://www.naturalphysiques.com/tools.php?itemid=28

You're below most of the SS-tards. Maybe AB has a lower one, but I doubt it. So ironically on the comments about being "muscular" you carry nearly the least muscle of anyone who posts here.

Just sayin'

LOOOOOOOOOOOOL