Optimal Amount Of Muscle Mass

churchmouth

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
248
Do you think there is possibly an optimal amount of muscle for a certain size frame to be carrying. What could the detriment be for lacking muscles - endocrine disfunction? Perhaps the body is so good at adjusting.

I am wondering if my hormones could be messed up (eg adult acne, high test, high e2, high cholesterol, high shbg), because I haven' allowed myself to develop the amount of muscle I should have developed had I lived a more natural life.

Has Peat commented along these lines?
 

Luckytype

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
933
Muscle is determined by a few things: genetics, supporting hormonal profile and stimuli. In my case i am genetically very slender and long. If i wasnt training(or farm working) I wouldnt have any sort of appreciable size in my upper body.

As a reference genetically the male lines in my families are long and slender, 6ft-6'2 or so tall and between 160-180 at the very most. My grandfather weighed a staggering 120lbs when he enlisted in the 1930s :D

Adding size in people who arent genetically set up to carry it without stimulus comes AFTER disinhibition of normal inhibitory neural signals for it(what you do have) to contract harder(first)and generally AFTER increasing stored fuels locally(second), probably because its metabolically expensive to carry.

Can you define what you consider to be a "more natural life".
 

theLaw

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
1,403
I think that Peat has mentioned a lack of Protein, Vitamins, and Minerals as the primary reason for weak muscle development.

From your post, it sounds like high-estrogen and possibly iron, so adding high-quality protein (dairy/gelatin) + weekly liver/oysters would probably help.

High protein intake increases muscle mass even w/o training

Iron from muscle-meats can be a significant problem, especially over time or with compromised liver function.

Iron's Dangers

Good example of normal vs weak muscle development:

180221132319-emma-gonzalez-david-hogg-780x439.jpg
 

Luckytype

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
933
I had an ultra nutritious childhood upbringing, well rounded, whole foods. Very healthy, never really got sick unless it was the flu.

I was a stick especially as a teen.

It wasnt until i added in weight training and bumped the calories to support it that i gained muscle. It was the training adaptation that added muscle.

Then came the neglectful part of my life, anti nutrition, no sleep, high calories and over training. Added muscle reasonably well without hitting any nutrient target. Still added muscle.

When i left the gym for 6 months after peating, On the return for another brief trial stint I added muscle and strength wayyyy faster. Like almost 75 percent return to regular strength in 12 weeks, likely only 9-10weeks. Musculature does have a memory and satellite cells a memory so who knows.

Point is, training has to be there for some people. In some people with killer genetics they could be shredded and jacked but still not even train. My one Nigerian friend was the latter.
 

paymanz

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
2,707
Adding size in people who arent genetically set up to carry it without stimulus comes AFTER disinhibition of normal inhibitory neural signals for it(what you do have) to contract harder(first)and generally AFTER increasing stored fuels locally(second), probably because its metabolically expensive to carry.
Haha thats interesting!i had to read that several time to almost get what you said! LOL
----------
Macro nutrient wise,Do you think dietary fat also helps you to increase muscle mass? Or just carb and protein is what you need?!
 

Luckytype

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
933
Makes sense though, right? From an evolutionary perspective - why add material when we can make existing material better first. Only if we cant should we consider adding it.


I have always thought(even before adopting and learning some stuff here) that fats and carbs were more important than protein.

Unless there is a supraphysiological sitution FORCING protein synthesis in muscle tissue, i think the calories and food are wayyy better spent on energy and hormones.

This is over simplistic but think of it as building a simple building, a pyramid, a castle. Its the labor that costs so much(hormones and physical energy ie fats carbs). Rocks, mortar, concrete, wood are cheap(your protein blocks), relatively.

Bearing in mind my genetics are likely similar to a piece of spaghetti, the absolute best quality and fastest progress has always come from prioritizing saturated fats and carbohydrate. This always came instinctively and by trial and error.

Oddly thats a peaty type principle.

Im maybe 5'10 on a reallly good day with a lot of sleep the night before :tearsofjoy: and I can get myself with the right training and the right food to approach 200 lean pounds if i want with enough time. Thats really only on 100-120g protein a day. Naturally untrained im probably 150-165.
 
OP
C

churchmouth

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
248
Can you define what you consider to be a "more natural life".

What I meant by this was something like working on a farm. I did some sport as a kid but it never really translated into a healthy looking muscle composition. Nutrition probably wasn't right at that point though.

Now after peating for a year I am starting to get recognisably more muscly just working out twice a week.

Just lift and dont be fat.

I am very lean.. unable to put on fat even when trying to overeat. It's a shame that not having fat hasn't led to good health. I geuss this stems my question that maybe all this time I was missing adequate muscle cells?
 
OP
C

churchmouth

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
248
I will do some proper research when I have some free time. The question isn't really about struggling to put on muscle mass.. so to expand on my original question:

Could there be some hormonal benefits for having the correct amount of muscle mass? If I lived a sedentary life, I would have a lesser amount of muscle cells (myocytes?) to be involved in the endocrine system.
Surely more muscle cells equate to higher energy metabolism requirement. So along those lines thinking the same would apply to production/metabolism of hormones such as testosterone, estrogens etc. Now if you consider that I could be below my optimal setpoint for muscle mass, perhaps the body is not good at down regulating some of these hormonal systems, or it is not healthy to run in such a state (ie. acne, hormone levels above range).
 

cyclops

Member
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
1,636
Could there be some hormonal benefits for having the correct amount of muscle mass? If I lived a sedentary life, I would have a lesser amount of muscle cells (myocytes?) to be involved in the endocrine system.
Surely more muscle cells equate to higher energy metabolism requirement. So along those lines thinking the same would apply to production/metabolism of hormones such as testosterone, estrogens etc. Now if you consider that I could be below my optimal setpoint for muscle mass, perhaps the body is not good at down regulating some of these hormonal systems, or i

Muscle mass is good and there are hormonal benefits, but it seems you are looking for some exactly measured "correct" amount. Maybe if you worked on a farm as a kid you'd have more muscle, maybe not. Kind of hard to know for sure. Who knows exactly how much lean mass your "supposed" have...too many factors to consider. I'd say more muscle then you have now is better, so just keep lifting and eating right and you'll be good.
 

Hans

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
5,856
Peat talks favorably about muscle as it increases your metabolic rate, but doesn't mention the optimal amount.
Anyways, if you look at men who don't gym but have muscle, are men who do hard labor jobs. You won't have as much muscle and shape as men who lift weights, but that's most likely considered as "optimal".
Your muscles grow to support the physical job. Only with weights can you grow even larger muscles than when doing a hard labor job.

Protein is the only macronutrient that builds muscle. If you're pretty active and also lift weights, you'll need more protein than others. There is a smart way to train which increases muscle protein synthesis optimally, and then there is the way everyone else does it (and if you're natural, it won't work nearly as well for you as for them). Because the truth of the matter is, everyone is using steroids. With steroids you can build muscle way easier, but when you're natural you need to eat and train a certain way in order to accomplish optimal muscle growth.
I can say this out of my own experience - I once did what bodybuilding stars advise on youtube, I faithfully did their workouts and how they eat, to the letter, but I was always very unsatisfied with my physique and didn't get the guaranteed results. Then I radically changed my way of training and eating to a way that is much more suitable for me as a natural bodybuilder, and gains started appearing pretty fast. Unbelievably fast. Building a muscular physique isn't nearly as simple as just following random advise about eating a bit of protein, and lots of carbs and fats and just doing some exercise/work on a farm. Unless you're using/have used roids, then it could be that simple.
 
OP
C

churchmouth

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
248
Muscle mass is good and there are hormonal benefits, but it seems you are looking for some exactly measured "correct" amount. Maybe if you worked on a farm as a kid you'd have more muscle, maybe not. Kind of hard to know for sure. Who knows exactly how much lean mass your "supposed" have...too many factors to consider. I'd say more muscle then you have now is better, so just keep lifting and eating right and you'll be good.

I think you are right - I am just overthinking something
 

Kunder

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
141
Peat talks favorably about muscle as it increases your metabolic rate, but doesn't mention the optimal amount.
Anyways, if you look at men who don't gym but have muscle, are men who do hard labor jobs. You won't have as much muscle and shape as men who lift weights, but that's most likely considered as "optimal".
Your muscles grow to support the physical job. Only with weights can you grow even larger muscles than when doing a hard labor job.

Protein is the only macronutrient that builds muscle. If you're pretty active and also lift weights, you'll need more protein than others. There is a smart way to train which increases muscle protein synthesis optimally, and then there is the way everyone else does it (and if you're natural, it won't work nearly as well for you as for them). Because the truth of the matter is, everyone is using steroids. With steroids you can build muscle way easier, but when you're natural you need to eat and train a certain way in order to accomplish optimal muscle growth.
I can say this out of my own experience - I once did what bodybuilding stars advise on youtube, I faithfully did their workouts and how they eat, to the letter, but I was always very unsatisfied with my physique and didn't get the guaranteed results. Then I radically changed my way of training and eating to a way that is much more suitable for me as a natural bodybuilder, and gains started appearing pretty fast. Unbelievably fast. Building a muscular physique isn't nearly as simple as just following random advise about eating a bit of protein, and lots of carbs and fats and just doing some exercise/work on a farm. Unless you're using/have used roids, then it could be that simple.


Well what the hell man. What is the magic pill?
 

Steene

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
140
Making the best of being natural means: high load, low volume, high frequency. Still way more inferior than just juicing yourself up and train however you like. But if you care about maximum growth on juice: medium load, high volume, high frequency.
 

Kunder

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
141
Frequency as in how often?

Either way your silver bullet didnt work for me. High load and low volume did nothing. I was doing it three times a week. Now im down to 2, and actually only working specific muscle groups once a week. I beat the ***t out of the muscle, yet the gains are extremely low. But at least i only do two days a week. Any more frequent than that and it be too much of a hassle and Id likely quit.
 

Steene

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
140
Frequency as in how often?

Either way your silver bullet didnt work for me. High load and low volume did nothing. I was doing it three times a week. Now im down to 2, and actually only working specific muscle groups once a week. I beat the ***t out of the muscle, yet the gains are extremely low. But at least i only do two days a week. Any more frequent than that and it be too much of a hassle and Id likely quit.

Frequency is like two times a week for every muscle, giving it a three days rest. High load with low volume doesn't mean you should just do something like 5x3 bench press, you won't gain anything with that. Low volume means little amounts of exercises per muscle, so only 1-2 exercise instead of the typical 3-4 I see everyone doing without any significant gains. Let's say you are doing something for your breast muscles you start with dumbbell/barbell bench presses in 7-10 rep range for three sets after that you do something complementary for the same muscle but always with a high intensity. If you work out more than 45 minutes your volume is still too high or your intensity is too low. Intensity means relatively heavy exercises within rather short breaks.

Beating the ***t out of a muscle won't do anything. There are different kinds of exhaustion. The typical pump which many are seeking won't do anything as long you are not 'supplementing' testosterone. Your muscle should simply be tired after a intense set not just pumped.
 

CLASH

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
1,219
For a natural lifter muscle protein synthesis last for about 48 hours if I remember correctly from my reading. Thus a general scheme towards more frequency would be better for a natural lifter to constantly increase muscle protein synthesis, up to a point of course. With this you have to keep in mind neural and endocrine fatigue just as much as muscular fatigue, I think alot of people forget about these aspects, especially if on drugs. In my experience less volume is helpful to allow you to recover optimally for a natural. So a routine comes out to be an upper/ lower split, 4 times a week with 2 upper days and 2 lower days or upper/ lower undulation with one day on, one day off (comes out to be 3 days one week and 4 days the next, depends on how you recover). I’d stay in the 8-10 rep range personally. Id stick with for upper: incline bench, flys, pull ups, rows, shoulder press, side delt raise, rear delt raise or face pulls, a bicep exercise and a tricep exercise (thats one workout). I’d do 1-2 sets for each exercise depending on how you feel. For lower I’d stick with stiff leg deads, lying hamstring curl, seated calve raise, standing calve raise, glute bridge, hanging leg raise, and squats or leg press. I’d do 1-2 sets depending on how you feel and maybe 3-4 sets for squats or leg press (too be honest I dont do either, I hate both, so I stick with goblet squats and I do them last and I never do more than 2 sets, thus my quads are the least developed of all ;)) (thats also one workout). I would also run a cycle that involves a deload. So
Cycle 1: 100% of weight/ 50% volume
Cycle 2: 100% of weight/ 100% volume
Cycle 3: 105% of weight/ 50% volume
Cycle 4: 105% of weight/ 100% volume
Deload: 50% weight/ 100% volume

With all this in mind there are some very important aspects to maintain:
1) consistency is key, even if you dont do all the sets prescribed it doesnt matter, as long as you get to the gym and do atleast 1 set of close to the prescribed weight your golden
2) your hormonal profile based on good food and sleep will dictate your results just as much as the workouts, especially with leanness
3) never push yourself too hard beyond your limits, avoid failure, try to keep the workout to an hour tops. If you start to feel like your finished in your workout, your finished no need to push. You have to autoregulate yourself and trust your body.

Hope this helps anyones whos interested, this is what I do for myself except I only do one set of each exercise for both workouts described above except for hanging leg raises and goblet squats, for those I do 2 sets. If you do 2 sets for each exercise you’d make progress faster, I definetly did but that full time job thing really takes it out of you... :)
 

Luckytype

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2017
Messages
933
Came here to echo intensity is king, consistency is queen(and this means months and years for us natural guys).

Consistency includes food intake as well.

I did have a couple body parts, naturally dormant that ONLY responded to ridiculous volume and beating the crap out of them while chasing the pump.
 

Kunder

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
141
You’re saying 5x3 wont do anything but 7x2 (or is it 7x3?) will make a difference? I don’t understand, and I would like to.

I do chest and shoulders in Wednesday:

Bench press: 7 sets in total, starting with really heavy load for about 6 reps, then gradually lowering weight and upping reps to 11 to 15 reps.

Military press: 6 sets, same premise, as low as 6 reps at first to 12 reps in the end.

Cable cross over: 5-6 sets, around 10-12 reps each.

Standing dumbel fly: 5 sets, about 12 reps each, heavier at first.

Generally speaking i lift very heavy, to failure. I take 1.5 minutes breaks, about 3 minutes between the excercises.

The whole thing take about 90 minutes.

On sunday its biceps, triceps, and back. Similar number of sets...curls, dips, etc.

Im very lean, minimal progess, although my arms look pretty pumped up afterwards.

I’m open to suggestions and willing to amend. I won’t work out more often though.
 

Attachments

  • B22B4488-8712-49DB-B29C-949A937FB602.jpeg
    B22B4488-8712-49DB-B29C-949A937FB602.jpeg
    71.5 KB · Views: 53

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom