I say this with respect, but isn't the way to get to the next level just to continually add more gear and more calories?
?
Really, what more is there?
Also, maybe I'm being naive, but I feel going from 200 to 220 in roughly the same condition as I am now is just one solid cycle away. Although I have legitimate health reasons to stay sub-200.
When I started working out, was 135-lb [in 2000]. Now, 23 years later, I'm 200. To make the math easy, let's say 50-lb of that is muscle = 23kg in 23 years.
That would mean I gained 1kg of muscle mass per year [2.2-lb]. Although I always massively under-ate, and only recently started eating enough.
On the high end, how much muscle mass can be gained in a year? I think 10-lb/year would be crazy. Even 5-lb of actual lean tissue would be a lot.
I don't mean to be a buzz kill, but IMO, natural muscle building sucks. I train in the 1-6 rep range because I feel I can get marginally stronger week by week. But I feel training for hypertrophy naturally produces miniscule gains. JMO.
As for B. Hank:
wes, is there a consensus on how much gear he runs? People say two grams a week. Can that be true? I don't bash his physique, but I am less impressed if he's running two grams a week.
Someone said I should run that much for six weeks, just to further beat B. Hank's lifts.
The thought has crossed my mind! Again, maybe I'm naive, but I think I'd be benching 405 easy on two grams a week!
