Muscle Building Techniques

Question: Jason, your transformation was pretty incredible going from 147 lbs to 231 lbs. How much trial and error did you think you went through training wise until you found what really worked?

Answer: Oh man, I can't even begin to tell you. I tried so many different methods and systems it was unbelievable. I actually started out as a beginner on a six day a week high volume body part split. This was back in the 80's so I think I was just looking in the magazines at whatever Shawn Ray or Aaron Baker or Gary Strydom were doing and just copy it exactly. Obviously that didn't work out too well.

I entered high school weighing less than 100 pounds and after four years of training my ass off and growing almost a foot taller, I only weighed 147 pounds at graduation. So obviously, all my experimentation during high school didn't work out to well either.

During those four years I was still doing whatever I could find in the magazines and even ordered some courses like Cybergenics and some other stuff that was popular at the time. I think the first training books I had were the Arnold Encyclopedia and one of Dr. Hatfields. I tried everything I read in both of those.

My experimentation during college was quite extensive and quite varied. I finally stumbled upon the HIT movement and Mike Mentzer and Arthur Jones. It was like a beacon of light and I adopted that training philosophy immediately. And for the first time I started to really grow, which isn't shocking since I was so grossly overtrained. But as anyone who has had a similar experience can tell you, those gains don't last too long either.

I could be here all day telling you about all the crazy stuff I did but I think it's pretty safe to say that I was in the game and wasted an inordinate amount of time and money for a good ten years before I really figured out what really worked.

Question: It is one thing to find something that works for you personally but you routinely pack 20lbs of muscle on the frames of your clients in spans of only 3 months. How do you get results like when other people seemingly struggle endlessly to get bigger?

Answer: At this point I have been training people for 14 years. During ten of those years I worked with clients for an average of ten hours per day; and twelve hours per day every summer. Now since I was always a C math student I can't tell you how many hours that is right off the top of my head but, take it from me, it's a friggin lot.

When you have that much experience doing anything you are bound to become somewhat proficient at it and just develop a knack for it and for reading people and recognizing commonalities.

Most people are making the same mistakes in their training and nutrition and some even have a faulty belief system that is holding them back. I address each of these issues and we're off and running.

Training is not rocket science not matter how many people try to turn it into that. But figuring it all out isn't simple either.

Question: Everyone nowadays is always worried about getting fat when “bulking up� what are some strategies that you use to ensure that you put on more muscle than fat? Or do you even care?

Answer: Well, first of all, a lot of people that worry about that have a fear that is completely unfounded. If you are an athlete, under twenty years old or both, this is not that great of a concern unless you are eating deep fried chocolate donuts and dipping them in butter six times a day.

I have worked with plenty of guys who could eat whatever they wanted to and could still stay lean. In that case you have no excuse for not being able to pack on twenty pounds in a couple months.

If you have trouble staying lean there are a few adjustments you need to make. First off, you need to make smarter food choices. Eat lean proteins like chicken, fish, eggs, lean red meat and cottage cheese instead of burgers, hot dogs and pork chops. Next, be sure to keep your carb sources clean as well. This means fruits and veggies are at the top of the list followed by oatmeal, brown rice, quinoa, and sweet potatoes. By now everyone knows the benefits of eating good fats like fish oil so I won't bore people to death with that.

If just eating clean is not enough then we move onto more advanced strategies like carb cycling and calorie cycling. This takes some time to explain but to make it really simple for everyone, you should eat more calories and carbs on training days than you do on non training days. Bottom line. Training days are higher calorie days, off days are lower calorie days; pretty simple. Of course it's more complicated than that but that's the gist of it.

Question: What are the biggest mistakes you see people make when trying to pack on muscle? Is it usually related to nutrition or training?

Answer: It's hard to say if it's one or the other because they do go hand in hand. But if I had to pick I would say it's gotta be training. It doesn't matter how great your diet is, if your training sucks, you're not gonna make progress.

But, you know what, I'm not even going to cover the training mistakes that people make because looking at that is missing the bigger picture. You know what the biggest mistake people make really is? The one thing that everyone seems to do these days, especially with all of the conflicting information that is out there?

It is a lack of consistency and a lack of belief in what you are doing. There is so much information out there these days that people don't know who or what to believe. And because of this they are confused. They are constantly reading something different and always in search of the next best thing. They do a workout for a week or two and then read so and so's new article about changing your tempo every rep or some brand new way to fire up the CNS or some nonsense and they try that system. A week or two later they decide that is not working so they switch to something else. And so on and so on.

If you are always changing programs and training philosophies how can you ever make progress? You can't; it's that simple. If you don't believe in what you are doing you will never, ever be successful. That is a universal principle that applies to everything in life. It has to apply to your training if you ever want to make real progress. You can use the crappiest training program in the world but if you are consistent, have the balls to train the way you really should and really and truly believe in what you are doing, you will get results.

Pick a training program, system or philosophy and stick with it; believe in what you are doing and train your ass off. You can't fail if you do that.

Question: Okay so tell us a little about Muscle Gaining Secrets. What makes this stand out from other products?

Answer: Well, first of all I tried to make it more of an entertaining read than a lot of the stuff out there so I included a lot of stories and personal anecdotes that people could relate to. The topics of sets and reps and proteins and carbs can be kind of boring so I try to spice it up a little bit.

Aside from that, I have tried to make it as simple to understand as possible while still including information that will help anyone from a raw beginner to an advanced lifter. I have had guys who have trained for over twenty years tell me that they learned quite a bit from reading Muscle Gaining Secrets, which makes me very happy to hear. If I can do that while not alienating beginners, then I know I achieved the goal I set out to accomplish.

I have included some unique methods of periodization which have rarely been covered. I detail every single mistake that people make in their training and show how these can be avoided. And of course, a book from me wouldn't be complete without getting politically incorrect and calling bullshit where I see it. I definitely expose a lot of the gimmicks and nonsense that is out there and do my best to help people save time and money and avoid making all the same mistakes that I did.

Jason Ferruggia is a world famous fitness expert who is renowned for his ability to help people build muscle as fast as humanly possible. He is the head training adviser for Men's Fitness Magazine where he also has his own monthly column dedicated to muscle building. For more great muscle building information, please visit:

Labels: build muscle, muscle building, muscle gain, muscle growth

Going back a generation famous bodybuilding guys like Reg Park, Bill Pearl, Arnold and Franco all built their huge physiques with hard work on basic compound movements. Of those compound movements the squat (click for video) was considered the keystone, the focal point of the routine. Powerlifters too recognised that the squat was the barometer of their power, a gauge by which they could accurately calculate their peaking cycle. Yes, it was no secret that the squat, when worked sensibly but hard, produced phenomenal gains - it was considered the King of Lifts

A generation later and in many gyms, not all, but in many, the full squat is a forgotten movement. Many who do squat do not squat at all, they curtsy with the weight doing quarter squats for the pose. The squat rack is shunned in favour of the 45 degree angle leg press - why - because it's easier to look good with all those 45 pound plates on each side.

Is the King of Lifts - the Squat - losing it's crown?
To answer that for oneself, simply look at the top bodybuilders and powerlifters. One will note that the top men in either drug-free associations or others exhibit a thickness that can only be achieved from years of work on the heavy compound movements, the key of those movements being the squat. Yes, the top men in either bodybuilding or powerlifting recognised the squat for the truly great growth builder it is. Why, then, is the squat not a popular movement in many gyms?

Two main reasons are the answers:

1. Laziness.
2. Incorrect technique.
   

Let's address the first reason - laziness. Squatting is hard work - it can be uncomfortable, it requires full concentration on the job in hand. Squatting works nearly the whole body - calves, quads, hamstrings, lower back, glutes, abdominals, heart and lungs etc. Because you, the lifter have to balance the weight, the body's stabilising muscles are also brought into play

Compare that with the leg press machine. No stabilising muscles are brought into play because the lifter is pushing the weight stack in a groove dictated by the machine. The lower bark muscles are not worked as the back is fully braced by the leg press seat. A lifter/bodybuilder who exclusively works the leg press and shuns the squat will not have built the power to squat with serious weight. Conversely, the lifter who squats regularly can cross over to the leg press effectively and use plenty of weight.

Judge yourself by the weight you are shifting in the compound movements. It is true that the top bodybuilders use exercises such as the leg press, leg extensions, lunges, etc but they have built their size and these exercises are movements for finishing and striating. A beginner or intermediate would do far better to shun these finishing exercises in favour of the squat. By the way, don't judge yourself as an advanced bodybuilder/powerlifter by the number of years you've been in the game, judge yourself honestly by the weight you are shifting in the compound movements.

Regardless of how many years you have been in the game if you have never squatted 500lbs you are still an intermediate. Yes that statement will anger some and hurt their pride but if it gets them in the squat rack it's worth it.

Lets move on to the 2nd point; Incorrect technique. If you've been in the game a while I'm sure you will have seen the lifter I am now going to describe. He will pack 45 pound plates on the squat rack, make lots of noise so that he has everyone's attention and then proceed to do quarter squats and thinks he's doing well.

Funny though, because he'll keep his legs covered up all the time with tracksuit bottoms. Why? because from his quarter squats, he still has little or no development of the legs. Get the picture? When you squat, squat at least to parallel. Full range movements are the movements that will give you the best results. Remember though, that when you do squat, concentrate fully on the DESCENT. In-depth research has proved that the beginner / intermediate often has a descent speed 3 times that of a world class lifter. In short, the world class lifter has learned to control the descent speed and thus can lift more. When you squat, focus fully on the descent and the ascent will be a lot easier.

There is so much that can be said about this great movement, but, in summary if you don't squat then make a decision to incorporate this exercise into your daily routine. Train the squat sensibly and supplement your diet wisely. Plan your squat routine over a 4 to 6 month period setting achievable short term goals along the way. After working hard for 4 to 6 months, assess your gains and then you will agree, that yes, the squat, is still the King of the Lifts.

When you've got the squat mastered, the next best thing is to add in a powerfull high calorie weight gainer, like CytoSport Cyto Gainer. This contains high quality whey protein, complex carbs and special fats such as MCT's and EFA's, that promote health and provide calorie dense energy. With the added calories or extra protein you'll find your legs grow like never before and your body takes on a thicker more mature kind of muscle. For some extra edge I recommend Novex Biotech Endothil-CR. During a double-blind, six-week body-building study, the active compound in Endothil-CR increased upper body strength by 100% and lower body strength by 249% after concentrated exercise (as measured by the amount of weight participants could bench press and leg press). And biceps circumference increased dramatically over placebo... more than a four-fold increase in circumference versus almost no increase with the placebo group (who were on the same body-building program).

Labels: leg training, muscle gain, muscle growth, muscle mass, squat

"I want to build muscle faster"

This is the main goal of my readers for sure. Probably your training experience is bigger than the usual 2-3 months (My intention is adding an online poll to take a clear picture about my readers profile) Anyway, you already know that muscle growth can be a painfully slow process. High intensity weight training 3-4 times per week, properly eat high quality foods and rest adequately, and still you look the same in the mirror. 99% of my readers are in the same situation.

If your goal is stepping on the scales a few short weeks from now with a lot more muscle than you have today, there are two powerful nutrients proven to deliver the results you're looking for. Their properties to build muscle have been revealed in an exciting study published in the scientific journal Nutrition (volume 17, pages 558-566). Before I show you the results, here's some vital background info you should know...

Creatine has been a great hit in the gyms. It is probably one of the most effective and most used nutrients available, there are literally hundreds of studies to show that creatine will help you build muscle quicker; get stronger and give your muscles a fuller, more "pumped" look. When you combine it with HMB, a compound found naturally in meat (though you'll need to eat around six pounds of meat every day to get enough) the results are really more impressive.

HMB is a very powerful anti-catabolic ingredient. What does this mean? Your muscles grow by a circular process of synthesising and breaking down proteins. If you want bigger, stronger muscles, you need to alter this cycle. That means either speeding up synthesis (anabolism) and/or slowing the rate of breakdown (catabolism). Muscle growth is the balance between the amount of protein your body makes and the amount it breaks down. Creatine is highly anabolic, while HMB is a powerful anti-catabolic. That's why HMB and creatine are the perfect combination for anyone who wants to pack on muscle without gaining fat.

The theory sounds great, doesn't it? But does it work in practice? The answer is a resounding "yes!" Researchers from Poland's Institute of Sport and Physical Education have put the creatine/HMB combo to the test. Their exciting results show that creatine and HMB work better together than either nutrient taken alone.

Subjects using HMB, for example, were able to lift a total of 86 pounds more weight (above the placebo group) at the end of the three-week study than they could at the start. Gains were similar (83 pounds) in the group using creatine. However, participants using both creatine and HMB were able to lift a whopping 114 pounds more (above the placebo group) than they could at the start of the study. In other words, the combination of creatine and HMB is over 30% more powerful than HMB alone at increasing strength.

What's more, not only did test subjects using HMB and creatine get stronger faster, they also found it easier to gain muscle. Participants in the creatine group, for example, gained 2 pounds of lean muscle. However, those using creatine and HMB gained an impressive 3.4 pounds of lean muscle. In fact, the group using creatine and HMB gained three times more muscle than those using HMB alone.

If you want to expand your knowledge about these 2 amazing compounds just lead you to the journal Nutrition (volume 17, pages 558-566 – available from the British Library). But, if you want start right now to immediately pack on muscle, and you want to try the combination of creatine and HMB for yourself, one of the best ways is Nutrabolics Gach with an all-in-one formula, such as, in the precise amounts needed for rapid results.

Labels: anabolism, build muscle, muscle building, muscle gain, muscle growth, nutritional supplements

by William D. Brink

When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even "Theory of Everything," they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." That's how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.

Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as sated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

One school, I would say the 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.

The other school, I would call more the 'new school' of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence.

This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.

Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:

A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.

A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.

"A calorie is a calorie"

The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.

This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.

However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.

The "calories don't matter" school of thought

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a diet.

Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!

The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That's not to say people can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

Weight loss vs. fat loss!

This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other physiological variables...

Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition

...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition which states:

"Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses;
macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses"

This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).

Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one might expect.

Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when calorie intakes are identical (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).

Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked at the issue concluded:

"Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition."(12)

The point being, there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the "calorie is a calorie" school with the "calories don't matter" school to help people make decisions about nutrition?

Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of course this does not account for the down right unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV, the 'net, and well meaning friends, but that's another article altogether).

Knowing the above information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful conclusions:

An optimal diet designed to make a person lose fat and retain as much LBM as possible is not the same as a diet simply designed to lose weight.

A nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition program designed to gain weight, and visa versa.

Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but total calories can't be ignored.

This is why the diets I design for people-or write about-for gaining or losing weight are not simply higher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with total calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the number of calories required. However, diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start with the correct macro nutrient ratios that depend on variables such as amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of macro nutrients can be quite different for both diets and even for individuals.

Diets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables.

Perhaps most important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of people, including most medical professionals, and the media, will always fail in the long run to deliver the results people want.

Finally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must account not only for total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this diet have on hormones; both hormones that may improve or impede my goals? What effects will this diet have on (fill in the blank)?

Simply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is the wrong question which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must ask the right questions to get meaningful answers.

Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets which make promises they can't keep and go against what we know about human physiology and the very laws of physics!

If you want to know my thoughts on the best way to set up a diet to gain weight in the form of muscle while minimizing bodyfat, consider purchasing Body Building Revealed from

www.MuscleBuildingNutrition.com

There are of course many additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as it applies to the above, but those are some of the key issues that come to mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following to either gain or loss weight does not address those issues and or questions, then you can count on being among the millions of disappointed people who don't receive the optimal results they had hoped for and have made yet another nutrition "guru" laugh all the way to the bank at your expense.

Any diet that claims calories don't matter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they have a magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one food source is evil, it's a scam. Any diet that tells you it will work for all people all the time no matter the circumstances, throw it out or give it to someone you don't like!

Labels: muscle building, muscle gain, muscle growth, nutrition, nutritional supplements

"Hi. Here is my problem: whatever I eat and whatever I do I can't seem to gain any weight. People tell me my metabolism must be going too fast. I have even taken some weight-gaining tablets and drinks, but they don't help. I have just started some body building, which might help, but I doubt it.

To give you an idea of my body frame I'm a male, 22, 5'10", and weigh only 125 pounds. I really hate this problem of being underweight! So my questions are:

1. Is my metabolism going too fast?
2. If it is, when will it slow down?
3. Do you have any advice that will help me gain at least ten pounds?

David, Dallas"

You will agree with me, David, that yours is a problem two-thirds of North Americans would love to “suffer�. I know that this idea doesn’t much comfort. I've read about the fast metabolism theme for years, and I have been able to discover this concept it’s absolutely nonsense! Yes you have read well this concept it’s totally CRAP. The reason is simple; You can research hundreds of medical studies and find out that differences in basal metabolic rate (a measure of the rate at which the body burns energy while at rest) per unit of body weight among healthy individuals of the same sex are relatively minor. If you find perceivable differences, those are generally accounted for by some disorder like hyperthyroidism. If you have any suspicions in this regard, see a doctor.

If hyperthyroidism it’s not the cause of your low body weight, you may have poor eating habits or an excessively frantic lifestyle (stress tends to increase the metabolic rate and body secretes more cortisol in stressing situations) I've heard other explanations for chronic thinness, but they all sound pretty dubious. For instance, one of my closest friends, who is a doctor once told me that body weight is related to the length of your small intestine, the longer it is, supposedly, the more food you absorb.

Maybe we must apply the occam’s razor here. Occam's razor is a principle attributed William of Ockham, a 14th-century English logician. Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.

Maybe the people who have a hard time gaining weight (what we refer to as ectomorphs) simply have fewer muscle and fat cells to absorb the extra bulk than more athletic types. Fortunately, tests have shown that high intensity weight training can add new muscle cells, a process called hyperplasia. This is a lot more work than simply strengthening existing muscle cells, admittedly, but you can take some comfort in the fact that the new muscle cells stay with you all your life, even if you knock off weight training later on.

What you need is a systematic weight gain program: eating (lots of carbohydrates, a fair amount of protein, no junk) plus weight lifting, with an emphasis on upper body exercises (six to eight repetitions per exercise with heavy weights. Increase the weight as soon as you can do more than eight reps).

Patience and perseverance is advised!

Labels: fast metabolism, muscle gain, underweight, weight gain

This article has been written to help someone who is new to the weightlifting world. I focused on some basic tenets that I thought should form the basis of any serious attempt at bodybuilding.

Protein

There is always a lot of detailed talk about protein; whether it should be whey or soy, how many grams per pound of bodyweight, how much the body can process, etc. The bottom line is that the best kind of protein depends on what your goals are. If you are trying to put on weight then the best kind of protein is found in whole foods, steaks, eggs, chicken etc. Protein supplements should be taken as supplements and not as the primary source of protein because, unless you are talking about weight-gainer formulations, the shakes lack sufficient calories. For a novice trying to put on weight, I suggest you eat a great deal of normal foods but that you mix your protein sources at each meal such as steak, eggs and milk or chicken and milk, etc. Drinking a protein shake with a normal meal is a good idea to help improve the amino acid profile of the over-all meal.

If you are attempting to reduce fat and increase your lean body mass then a protein supplement becomes more important because you are concerned only with protein intake and not caloric intake. Protein has 4 calories per gram so a decent shake will have under 200 calories providing you are drinking a pure protein blend with no carbohydrates. I think that when you are dieting you will find that a much higher percentage of your protein intake comes from supplements as opposed to whole foods. There are a few reasons that this happens; first of all it is easy to count calories and grams of protein using shakes as opposed to trying to weigh out each meal. Secondly, protein shakes are convenient and keep you out of the kitchen where the temptation of food lies. Lastly, a protein supplement is going to be a more efficient source of ideal proteins because the bio-availability (a fancy word for how much useful protein a food has) is higher then that of cooked meat.

I do not endorse a particular brand of protein powder, but my recommendation is that you find one that you enjoy drinking. I used to buy economy protein blends online (you know, 44 pounds for 200 bucks) and they tasted so vile it was a punishment to choke them down. So I would drink a few shakes then just stop and the protein would end up being useless. Now I buy expensive pre-mixed protein drinks (Isopure if anyone cares) that I think taste great. Not only do I not have to mix anything up but the drinks are delicious and nutrition; well, they are convenient and taste OK.

The Workout

I am not some legendary Russian strength coach, I do not have the secret keys to unlock the ultimate training routine. I do, however, understand the basic processes by which muscle growth is stimulated. The keys to progress are as follows: overload, variation, and recuperation.

The overload principle is the training philosophy espoused by many systems, I mean training until muscle failure on almost every set. I am not going to go into much depth on this issue because Anabolic Extreme has already addressed the training system we use. I am also not interested in getting into much debate over the proper training methodology. I am, however, going to say that unless you are training to complete muscle failure (and central nervous system failure if you like) you are not going to continue to progress.

Variation is important because muscle growth is an adaptive response. The "failure" of the muscle is ultimately responsible for hypertrophy. Practically this means that the workout you use today is not the workout you should be using in 6 weeks. By changing not only your exercises but also your rep range and rest period between sets you will continue to keep the body "guessing", which amounts to gains in the gym.

Recuperation

Recuperation is essential, muscle is not built in the gym under the heavy load of the iron. Growth occurs with adequate food intake and rest. The period immediately following your workout is the most crucial feeding time and I recommend a meal within 20 minutes of leaving the gym. This meal should consist of 40-60 grams of whey protein, creatine, glutamine, and some simple carbohydrates (I use sports drinks like Gatorade). Two hours later, I recommend a full meal of "real" food. In the period right after exercise the body is primed to absorb nutrients which is why the first post-workout meal consists of easily digested proteins and insulin-spiking sugars. The body needs a constant supply of amino acids which is why frequent meals are important.

The second component of recuperation is sleep. If you are actively weight-training then you need at least 8 hours of sleep but more is better. The dilemma with sleep is that, unless you are very talented, you cannot eat and sleep at the same time. Some people advocate waking up in the middle of the night to eat and I think this will work for some people (keep a shake by the bed). However many people cannot wake up, chug a shake, and go back to sleep. Therefore, I think that the meal immediately before bed is crucial. I recommend a meal that consists of a variety of proteins including caseinete (which is slowly processed and rich in anti-catabolic amino acids). Cottage cheese is an ideal pre-sleep meal. Some authors, like the late Paul Borreson, advocate eating a meal that contains a lot of fat right before bed. Their rationale is based on the fact that fat slows gastric emptying which means the meal takes longer to digest and results in a steady release of vital nutrients. Well, the problem with this theory is that most of the absorption occurs in the intestinal tract and it takes hours for a meal to move through said tracts. I think that a pre-sleep meal should be high in protein with as few calories as possible unless weight gaining is your goal in which case eat whatever you want!

A quick word on fiber is in order here. If you are following a low-carbohydrate diet then you need to be taking a fiber supplement. In the next few weeks I will release an article all about the topic of fiber because, frankly, I am terrified of colon cancer. I have a friend whose friend won the Teenage Mr. Florida but then was diagnosed with colitis. Anyway, I will save my paranoid ranting for later. Let me just say that I recommend ample fiber supplementation to anyone who does not want to have to carry around their waste in a bag!


Hopefully I have given a few more clarifications to the otherwise confusing world of beginning weight-lifting. I think that people get so caught up in the details that they forget the most crucial simple components of success. I mentioned before the people who are obsessed with the perfect supplementation regime but forget to sleep enough or eat enough whole foods. At its heart, weight lifting is a fundamentally simple process, as an ex-girlfriend of mine once said "all you do is pick up heavy things and then put them back down, you don't even move them anywhere!" I guess you see why things didn't work out. My hope is that this series of articles will be sufficient to dispel some of the confusion and, because my suggestions are simple, you can actually follow them for more then a week.

Labels: bodybuilding, muscle building, muscle gain, muscle growth