Amazing transformation. This kid was scrawny and slogging 70mpw in High School left him weak. So he decided to transform. Incredible what he achieved in one year:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/body-transformation-muscle-master.html
Now if anyone still thinks that 70mpw is good for you, look at the pictures.
Note that he used a bodybuilding routine, not Crossfit, which lacks periodization but does have highly catabolic metcons that make running the mile look anabolic.
IDK, he could have done both. Symmonds is pretty good looking
http://www.homorazzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/nick-symmonds-tattoo.jpg
illinoisphotographer wrote:
IDK, he could have done both. Symmonds is pretty good looking
You're kidding, right? He has the muscular definition of a girl.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m99va58rlX1rw9j98o1_500.gifXfitguy_the_real_one_1 wrote:
You're kidding, right? He has the muscular definition of a girl.
Phaggy.
Listen, if you think we are dumb enough to believe that this kid gained 50 lbs of muscle on less than 2 years without the use of anabolic steroids, you are a total fool, in addition to being a troll.
Why does that article have pictures of three different people?
Xfitguy_the_real_one_1 wrote:
Amazing transformation. This kid was scrawny and slogging 70mpw in High School left him weak. So he decided to transform. Incredible what he achieved in one year:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/body-transformation-muscle-master.htmlNow if anyone still thinks that 70mpw is good for you, look at the pictures.
Er... wrote:
Why does that article have pictures of three different people?
Amazing transformation, right?
what does this have to do with cross fit? there wasn't one mention of a kettle bell anywhere!
What you do is bulk up to 180 and switch to the 800, or the 400 if you're fast enough.
I'm as fast at the 800 at 180 as I was at 160. I'm not as fast at distance but who the hell cares about that.
I figure, I can catch any sprinter within 800 when they collapse. I can catch a distance runner within 800 if they don't have too much head start. I can escape any sprinter if they're not too close, and escape any distance runner by getting to safety within 800 meters.
So 800 meters is the ideal battle distance. For success in battle, concentrate on the 800. And 180 is the max weight for that.
When the oil runs out, and cars don't work, and factories no longer make firearms or ammunition, this will all matter.
Don't bulk up to 200. 200 pounds of muscle will tire you out faster than 200 pounds of fat.
Bad Wigins wrote:
...
So 800 meters is the ideal battle distance. For success in battle, concentrate on the 800. And 180 is the max weight for that.
...
Don't bulk up to 200. 200 pounds of muscle will tire you out faster than 200 pounds of fat.
I think Wiggins is correct. Special Forces operators look more like middle distance runners than bodybuilders, not that you'd get that from the action movies.
Er... wrote:
Why does that article have pictures of three different people?
It doesn't. Your malnourishment as a skinny runner has left your eyesight very poor.
not quite so. wrote:
Listen, if you think we are dumb enough to believe that this kid gained 50 lbs of muscle on less than 2 years without the use of anabolic steroids, you are a total fool, in addition to being a troll.
This is the kind of idiotic and hilariously misinformed post that makes it so easy for guys like xfit to make fun of the dweeby scrawny distance runners.
When gaining weight/bulking, a conservative goal is 0.5 to 2lbs per week. Now, I didn't major in math (although I did graduate medical school), but one year = 52 weeks, and conceivably in a year he could have easily put on a pound per week to add 50lbs. Since he was clearly underweight like most of the Letsrun posters to begin with, he probably had an even easier time gaining back actual muscle than the average Joe would.
You accusing this kid of taking steroids is like me accusing you of taking EPO because you dropped your mile PR from 5:55 to 5:25.
Idiots everywhere wrote:
When gaining weight/bulking, a conservative goal is 0.5 to 2lbs per week.
That is just wrong. First, the typical figures are 0.5 to 2 pounds per month, not per week. So you're looking at 24 pounds of muscle per year on the high end.
Second, that comes with fat gain (a typical "partitioning ratio" is 50%, meaning that you gain 50% fat and 50% muscle). So that means you've got another 24 pounds of fat. A fairly rapid diet would mean losing 2 pounds of weightper week, and let's say it's at 100% fat loss and 0 muscle (better than typical, but perhaps possible). That means that we're looking 12 weeks to lose the fat. Now we're at 64 weeks to gain 24 pounds of muscle.
Third, that 2 pounds of muscle per month estimate is the high end. Most people do not have the genetics. One half pound per month or one pound per month is more accurate.
Justin91 wrote:
Idiots everywhere wrote:When gaining weight/bulking, a conservative goal is 0.5 to 2lbs per week.
That is just wrong. First, the typical figures are 0.5 to 2 pounds per month, not per week. So you're looking at 24 pounds of muscle per year on the high end.
Second, that comes with fat gain (a typical "partitioning ratio" is 50%, meaning that you gain 50% fat and 50% muscle). So that means you've got another 24 pounds of fat. A fairly rapid diet would mean losing 2 pounds of weightper week, and let's say it's at 100% fat loss and 0 muscle (better than typical, but perhaps possible). That means that we're looking 12 weeks to lose the fat. Now we're at 64 weeks to gain 24 pounds of muscle.
Third, that 2 pounds of muscle per month estimate is the high end. Most people do not have the genetics. One half pound per month or one pound per month is more accurate.
No, it really is per week, not month. I realize most of you are confused by this because you've never been muscular and have no experience with it.
Most of the rest of the stuff you said is of course correct regarding fat with muscle, but when you're gaining 1-2 lbs a week, you're still gaining plenty of muscle even if half that weight was fat (which it won't be in an ectomorph like him).
So, you're still wrong. .5 to 2lbs per WEEK.
That kid in the photo should be posting on Slowtwitch.
I don't understand why people come on this site, a site pretty much dedicated to long distance running, then make fun or belittle people for focusing on that. Should people on this site start going to bodybuilding/crossfit forumns and make fun of how f*cking slow those people are?
Xfitguy_the_real_one_1 wrote:
Amazing transformation. This kid was scrawny and slogging 70mpw in High School left him weak. So he decided to transform. Incredible what he achieved in one year:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/body-transformation-muscle-master.htmlNow if anyone still thinks that 70mpw is good for you, look at the pictures.
I find the story there not credible. He says he could barely bench the bar. The bar weighs 45 pounds, so come on. Also, I disagree that he ran at a "high level". See here -
http://oh.milesplit.com/athletes/299027-reed-fobesMy intention is not to make fun of his times, just to point out that if any runner is considering doing what he did, just realize that he had a 1600 PR of 4:43 (though it COULD be faster as the milesplit sites only gather information from published results, usually invitationals...he could have run faster in a dual meet). His other PRs are in line with that 4:43 1600, and they wouldn't be what I could call a "high level".
Any runner who wants to progress to be the very best RUNNER they can be would obviously want to stick to 70 MPW and more and strive more for a body like the BEFORE image rather than the AFTER one.
Flagpole wrote:
Xfitguy_the_real_one_1 wrote:Amazing transformation. This kid was scrawny and slogging 70mpw in High School left him weak. So he decided to transform. Incredible what he achieved in one year:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/body-transformation-muscle-master.htmlNow if anyone still thinks that 70mpw is good for you, look at the pictures.
I find the story there not credible. He says he could barely bench the bar. The bar weighs 45 pounds, so come on. Also, I disagree that he ran at a "high level". See here -
http://oh.milesplit.com/athletes/299027-reed-fobesMy intention is not to make fun of his times, just to point out that if any runner is considering doing what he did, just realize that he had a 1600 PR of 4:43 (though it COULD be faster as the milesplit sites only gather information from published results, usually invitationals...he could have run faster in a dual meet). His other PRs are in line with that 4:43 1600, and they wouldn't be what I could call a "high level".
Any runner who wants to progress to be the very best RUNNER they can be would obviously want to stick to 70 MPW and more and strive more for a body like the BEFORE image rather than the AFTER one.
To be fair, I don't think the OP/xfit guy was saying putting on 50lbs of muscle was going to help the kid's running. He was saying that if he wanted to look more impressive and not look so third-world-malnourished, giving up the 70mpw lifestyle for a strength training regimen will help you gain a more impressive physique.
