Oh and sick brag, I got a chance to hang out and play with Michael Ian Black over the last few days. He's one of my favorite comedian/actors so it was really cool. Ad everyone is apparently really dumb because no one ever heard of him ever out of anyone I asked (large sample size)

And I guess I missed Steve Zhan by just a few minutes. F F F

This, plus...damn, Poundstone is <3 <3 <3

I am getting of my lazy ass finally again and starting SS, should I go GOMAD at 6'7" and 190 lbs?

Yes

We have Rip Hamilton posting here.

why not show us a picture? it's been about 12 hours since we've had a picture in this forum of a post-adolescent male posing in boxers, so we're due.

lol the chance I am posting a picture in my boxers of myself on 2p2 isnt very large since I already get enough flak in OOT. I can post my measurements though.

right bicep : 13.0"
left bicep : 12.4"
waist : 36.4"
chest : 37.2"
hips : 39.8"
right thigh : 22.0"
left thigh : 21.6"
neck : 15.4"
right forearm : 11.4"
left forearm : 10.5"
right calf : 14.2"
left calf : 13.8"
wrists : 6.71"

all measurements except chest/hips/neck/waist is flexing

looks like epic skinny fatness. Not epic. More like standard.

I have said this before, and smiley has talked about this too, SS+GOMAD is an axiomatic directive to encourage certain behaviors (i.e. lift progressively heavy and feed yourself enough calories and protein), just like "Don't eat carbs after 6pm" axiomatically translates to "Eat less, you fat-tard." I should note there are qualitative differences between these.

GOMAD in a literal sense has been prescribed to young, skinny, and weak trainees who require to gain strength and bodyweight quickly and efficiently. It's pretty clear that it works and why it works.

On the other hand, and at the risk of coming off as a jdock-apologist, sometimes advice on this forum tends to come off as (even if it may not intend to) as "Eat as much as you can over maintenance calories." Unless your goal is purely bodyweight gain or absolute strength at the expense of other things, this is inefficient and often counterproductive.

At this point it's useful to understand "realistic rates of LBM" for natural lifters (lyle, alan aragon, and leigh peele and others have written about this quite well) in order to figure out a framework of nutrition that supports muscle, strength gain, and adequate recovery without having what Aragon calls "an opus in blubber-stacking."

re: FFMI/aFFMI, I must say I'm really not convinced by their claim that there's a well-defined upper limit of 25 for non-steroid-using people. Even using a very generous estimate for my bodyfat (25%) my aFFMI is 24.7, and I've only trained seriously for about 4 months. Using a more reasonable guess (21%) my aFFMI is 26, and I don't remember using a bunch of steroids.

My guess would be that their claims hold for people of average height/weight but don't really apply to 6'2, 250 people.

It has flaws mostly with frame size and the fact that fat mass supports additional LBM.

At one point in his career (I think early Laker years) Shaq claimed to only have 10% bodyfat. Assuming this is even close to true I wonder what that would have put his aFFMI at?

I dunno. It'd be sweet if there was like an internet calculator for this stuff.

lyle's article addresses this. read it imo.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/res...ch-review.html

the reason i referred to the article was the following logic bomb. zach is 6'1" 242, my height and 13lb less than my weight. i look much more muscular than him at a higher weight, so i have significantly more lbm than he does.* somehow he has 191 lbm, and if i have a lot more than that, it puts me about a 45lb, 2:1 fat:muscle cut away from having a 25 ffmi at low teens bodyfat.

*this claim is supported by his lifts @ 242:

No way. You mean fatbodies have more LBM than lean people? Like pro bodybuilders get a higher off season score than competition day? I cast dispel illusion that an internet calculator based off bodyfat weight height can't make perfect decisions about everyone.

saving throw failed

yall study too much

miles are those his lifts? not tha timpressive imo? or am i high? 325 DL really? 145 press?

Originally Posted by rip
His squat was stuck after a slight bout of novice termination. His bench is at 240 x 5, DL is 325 x 5, press is about 145 x 5, PC is about 176 x 3.

Egads. At 242 lbs this is not even strong. So in this example we have a guy who does not look good w/o a shirt and is not strong for his weight and this is a GOMAD/SS success story? No thank you.

I have a feeling that if he did the same SS training w/o the GOMAD he would be like 180-190, he would look a hell of a lot better, be a lot healthier, and not that much weaker. It seems in this example like caloric overconsumption resulted in adding a lot of fat for marginal strength gains.

yes, those are his lifts according to rip here.

I haven't thought much about that guy up to now, but from the last few posts I'd say that he isn't a great success story and Rip should stop praising him.

fwiw, Rip said in his radio interview that Zach was drinking 2 gallons of milk a day.

jdock, there's no way he would be anywhere near as strong at 180-190. But yes, I doubt his strength gains would be THAT badly impaired with a more moderate approach (say if he weighed 220 right now).

I think he is Rip's response to (legitimate) criticism about guys like AC and Justin. Both are talented and natural athletes that got very strong on the linear progression. That is, the guys were going to be freaks no matter what program they're on.

yeah. I don't doubt that. FWIW, I just saw on 70sbig that AC was 180 and Justing was 195 before they even started training seriously. So what can you expect when they hit the weights?
I'm just saying that this Zach guy might not be the best candidate for a roadshow about the benefits of SS. His bench is pretty nice, but his DL is very low imo and the press isn't really awesome either for someone who was willing to gain a lot of weight including fat to get "really strong". I think I heard bad things about his squat depth here on HF.
After-all, it doesn't really make sense to have a 10,000 kcal intake when you "only" need 5,000 to grow (# pulled out of my ass), just to be in the position to claim that you are drinking 2 GOMAD and "growing". And somehow I get the impression that that's basically what he was doing.

ETA: I have bad reading comprehension. I thought you meant it was Rip's legitimate response instead of the criticism being legitimate. I don't think Rip managed to prove the pundits wrong.

I wonder if this Zach guy is reconsidering letting Rip take his pictures, considering all the chit-chat over his bodyfat, training, fatty fat fat, etc.