2002/05/24, 01:59 PM
Here's a general question for more experienced lifters out there: I've read that those programs that promise huge gains of 10 pounds or more of muscle mass within a few months are actually pretty deceptive, because it's physiologically impossible to add that much muscle mass naturally. The naysayers argue that a gain of 3 to 7 pounds of muscle in a year is amazing for anyone, and that a good deal of rapidly gained mass will be due to increased glycogen stores, water weight, or even additional body fat. So have there been any credible studies done on the rate of actual muscle gain with training? And how should you factor in bigger glycogen stores and water weight when trying to gauge your lean gains? It seems like this could still be considered "lean" mass since it's not fat. Also, though I'm not personally concerned about "bulking," as a female, I'm curious to know what bodybuilding women should realistically expect in terms of mass gains over time.
|
|
|
2002/05/24, 02:16 PM
Hey, no stealing my name. :)
-------------- And my soul must be iron, because my fear is naked. I'm naked and fearless.
|
2002/05/24, 02:33 PM
i saw a commercial for a fat burner that said these people lost like 10-20 lbs in two or three weeks this is crazy, the company was Xandadrine. genetics plays a huge role in the process to.
|
2002/05/25, 09:13 PM
yes you are correct, the most muscle that someone can gain in a year is 5 to 7 pounds. and it is physiologically impossible to gain something like 15 pounds of muscle within a year without the use of steriods.
|