Natural Muscle Gain

[wavelength]

If a natural bodybuilder would try to gain muscle mass while keeping his fat mass constant (no "bulking"), what would be a typical rate of muscle gain, A) as rookie and B) as advanced.

[BFP]

You sahould be able to predict that as well as you can predict what one of the anonymous posters here on getbig looks like.

Jason

[Cromespyder]

depends on your genetics.

end of discussion.

[wavelength]

depends on your genetics.

end of discussion.

True, but what would be a realistic range? I think
A) 2-10lb / year
B) 0-2lb / year

Again, this is without changing (maybe even reducing) your fat mass.

[240 is Back]

If a natural bodybuilder would try to gain muscle mass while keeping his fat mass constant (no "bulking"), what would be a typical rate of muscle gain, A) as rookie and B) as advanced.

Wait, is this natural bodybuilder allowed to use M1T?

[wavelength]

Wait, is this natural bodybuilder allowed to use M1T?

No pro-hormones, "pro-steroids", AS, GH, etc.

[Cromespyder]

True, but what would be a realistic range? I think
A) 2-10lb / year
B) 0-2lb / year

Again, this is without changing (maybe even reducing) your fat mass.

100% depends on your genetics.  whats realistic for one person is not for another.

[wavelength]

100% depends on your genetics.  whats realistic for one person is not for another.

Yes, but it will probably be a Gauss distribution, with most people within a certain range. Let's take genetic freaks (best 5%) and non-responders (worst 5%) out of the picture. Or better, let's just say the person has avarage genetics in this regard.

[d0nny2600]

Yes, but it will probably be a Gauss distribution, with most people within a certain range. Let's take genetic freaks (best 5%) and non-responders (worst 5%) out of the picture. Or better, let's just say the person has avarage genetics in this regard.

Wave, It will be slow. Very slow. Could be a lb or 2 a year. May not even make that. As your calories will be remaining low(ish) you will be hard pressed to see any gains. Over time they will come. Although a Test Dball cycle would help :-)

[240 is Back]

No pro-hormones, "pro-steroids", AS, GH, etc.

I know a guy with gyno who used m1T by the bucketload, but he's still natural dude.

[Cromespyder]

Yes, but it will probably be a Gauss distribution, with most people within a certain range. Let's take genetic freaks (best 5%) and non-responders (worst 5%) out of the picture.

depends on your genetics, your diet,training etc. 
if youve been bodybuilding a while you probably wont gain much if at all, if you want to put on a non-negligable amount muscle naturally you need to put on to least a little fat, you cant expect to gain at or below caloric maitinence which is what it takes to not put on any fat.

[wavelength]

Wave, It will be slow. Very slow. Could be a lb or 2 a year. May not even make that. As your calories will be remaining low(ish) you will be hard pressed to see any gains. Over time they will come. Although a Test Dball cycle would help :-)

That's exactly what I'm thinking, maybe more in the first two years (rookie gains).

[wavelength]

depends on your genetics, your diet,training etc. 
if youve been bodybuilding a while you probably wont gain much if at all, if you want to put on a non-negligable amount muscle naturally you need to put on to least a little fat, you cant expect to gain at or below caloric maitinence which is what it takes to not put on any fat.

OK, let's assume avarage genetics and perfect diet and training. What do you think the rates are for rookies (first 2 years) and advanced lifters? I just want a wild guess.

[Method101]

5-10lbs a year for 5 years then 0lbs a year.

[Cromespyder]

OK, let's assume avarage genetics and perfect diet and training. What do you think the rates are for rookies (first 2 years) and advanced lifters? I just want a wild guess.

1-2lbs a year for both, max.  you can gain shit at or below caloric maitinence.

[wavelength]

5-10lbs a year for 5 years then 0lbs a year.

I highly doubt that. If we take the middle of 7.5lbs, it would mean that if I start out with let's say 10% bodyfat at a weight of 150lbs, I would end up weighing 188lbs with 8% bodyfat after 5 years. I think that's impossible for a natural with avarage genetics.

[wavelength]

1-2lbs a year for both, max.  you can gain shit at or below caloric maitinence.

I think as a rookie (first two years), gains could be higher, but other than that, I agree.

[JOHN MATRIX]

my (natural) friend put on 25lb of pure muscle in his first year. i however would be lucky to put on even 5 quality pounds a year. pasta seems to be helping though.

[d0nny2600]

That's exactly what I'm thinking, maybe more in the first two years (rookie gains).

You have leaned out very well so any rookie gains you would have made from a bulk are not really going to happen now. You are going to have to up the calories to grow dude. Although nothin wrong with being lean year round and settling for small gains.

my (natural) friend put on 25lb of pure muscle in his first year. i however would be lucky to put on even 5 quality pounds a year. pasta seems to be helping though.

Unlikely to be pure muscle

[Method101]

my (natural) friend put on 25lb of pure muscle in his first year. i however would be lucky to put on even 5 quality pounds a year. pasta seems to be helping though.

sure "John Matrix"

[Method101]

btw- A better question is, whats the maximum amount of muscle a natural can gain in their lifetime.

Imo its around 30lbs.

[JOHN MATRIX]

sure "John Matrix"

is there a problem around, method?

[Method101]

is there a problem around, method?

yes, you admit that you do 0 leg training and then make claims of 25lbs of muscle gain in a year

[wavelength]

You have leaned out very well so any rookie gains you would have made from a bulk are not really going to happen now. You are going to have to up the calories to grow dude. Although nothin wrong with being lean year round and settling for small gains.

The question has nothing to do with me, it has a different background. I read a study that suggests a 30lb/year increase. Although this was not the main focus of the study, I would think that something must be wrong with it.

[JOHN MATRIX]

yes, you admit that you do 0 leg training and then make claims of 25lbs of muscle gain in a year

re-read my post.