Quote:
Originally Posted by milesdyson
i think the answer to that is unequivocally no. it may have taken him longer, but he made all these gains on workout to workout increases. he'd end novice gains earlier and be on intermediate programming, but he'd definitely still have the potential to match (and eventually crush) those lifts at a lower bodyweight/bodyfat.
This makes me think that your views in this whole controversy are colored by the fact that you did very well on SS while only gaining like 5 pounds and probably losing BF%. That is a really really flukish occurrence imo, especially for a non-obese person.
It's not clear from the details I'm aware of that Zach would have gained at a significantly higher LBM:fat ratio if he had eaten at a smaller surplus.
I mean isn't Rippetoe claiming Zach gained like 60% LBM? Assuming for the moment that's true, the implication of your statement above is that Zach would have gained at some substantially higher rate if he had bulked more slowly. That seems unrealistic to me.
If 60% is in fact high, maybe he gained at like 50% but would have gained at 55% if he had gained more slowly. NFI.
For reference I've done SS at two different levels of surplus...first three months were like 900 calories a day, the fourth month was like 1800 (these numbers are pretty vague but I have the records if it's important to figure out).
I tracked my bodyfat and weight this whole time and gained at the same 45-50% in both phases...just twice as fast (almost exactly) in that 4th month as in the preceding months.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing, just giving you my honest opinion.