skinnyguy.net legit?

[Oleo]

I'm sorry. I have to chime in here.

It's clear to me that sosuave is NOT the place to go for advice on fitness. If this is your one-stop-shop for workout and nutrition advice, you haven't even scratched the surface. Claims of 30lbs of muscle mass in a month are ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. You can NOT gain a pound of muscle mass every day. If you're gaining over 2lbs a week, you are likely gaining fat. Not to mention all of the out-dated bodybuilding myth spewed around here.

Although I haven't ordered his over-priced book, from what I've read of skinnyguy.net, it's simply a compilation of conventional, post-steroid, bodybuilding mag rhetoric. Nothing you can't get from any conventional bodybuilding sight with MINIMAL research. The ONLY reason I can see for purchasing this guy's book is if you TRULY need something to hold your hand throughout the (minimally effective) process, which, if you do your research, you won't.

If you want to get serious about this stuff, and really learn about the science behind training (and why most of the methods of skinnyguy.net and the bulking guide on this site are NOT REMOTELY the most effective methods), here are a few links to start you out. These links are infinitely more insightful than anything you can read at skinnyguy.net or here at sosuave and guess what, the info is FREE.

http://hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html
http://www.asylum-strength.com/dual.htm
http://www.superiormuscle.com/showthread/t-1479.html

It's a lot of tough reading so I'll give you a small synopsis of some of the key ideas. I would, however, STRONGLY ENCOURAGE you guys to read through the links I've provided as I can only provide few principles and don't care to elaborate very much on the reason for those principles (which are in the readings).

1. Training a muscle group once per week is NOT the most effective way of training. For one thing, it's nearly impossible to separate the body into specific training days without a significant amount of overlap. Bench press will hit the lats and front delts, squats hit the whole posterior chain as well as the lower back, deadlifts hit pretty much everything, etc. More importantly, muscles only take about 48 hours to recuperate, after which, they decondition in a catabolic state. It is better to offer the muscle a consistent state of conditioning conducive to hypertrophy (the enlargement of muscles). Which brings me to my next point.

2. It is NOT NECESSARY to train to concentric failure. When you train to failure, what is failing is NOT your muscle, per say, but rather your central nervous system (CNS). This is the function of the "one muscle group per week" ideology. You are pounding your CNS with multiple failure sets and letting your CNS recover for a week, NOT your muscles, which recovered long ago. This is more effective for STRENGTH training, NOT muscular hypertrophy (what a bodybuilder is after). Therefore, a three times per week, full body workout with about two sets of a BASIC COMPOUND exercise for each body part, taken about two reps short of failure would be a MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE (and biologically correct) way of training. Which, again, brings me to my next point.

3. Doing five sets of bench press will NOT train more muscle fibers than two sets. You're muscle is like a whole bunch of rubber bands strung together along side of each other. By pulling at each end, you don't place more stress on one rubber band than another. The muscle contracts as a whole. Also, different rep ranges don't activate different fiber types (type I, type IIa, type IIb), they will all always fire during a contraction. This is not to say that doing more volume doesn't have a different effect. I'm merely addressing the myth that one should do multiple sets, “to make sure you hit all of the muscle fibers." Now, if you want to know about the effectiveness of different volume protocols read up on "Time Under Tension" (TUT). By the way, this is NOT HIT ideology. HIT would have you doing one set to absolute failure and then resting for an excessive amount of time. The reason two sets taken to one or two reps before failure tends to be optimal, is because it doesn't place to much demand on the CNS over the week. Really what you're doing is displacing the sets over the week. Instead of doing six sets for chest on Monday and then deconditioning for a week, you do two sets on Monday, two sets on Wednesday, and two sets on Friday, providing a constant hypertrophy-inducing atmosphere.

4. Nutrition is important, but believe it or not, the way most conventional programs would have you eating is far in excess of what is optimal. But, those programs need some way for you to see 30lbs in a month or whatever, so they give it to you in fat, which you put on by overeating. Food is NOT converted into muscle mass. Muscle building is a METABOLIC function. Therefore, eating enough (and the correct) food to elicit a positive metabolic response is all that's need. You can eat maintenance calories and gain muscle (making gaining muscle without gaining fat POSSIBLE but very difficult). You do need to eat quite a bit more food just because you're burning calories and carrying out more metabolic function during a training cycle. It's also true that you need to eat quite a bit of protein. In fact, conventional bodybuilding nutritional advice isn't THAT bad, it's just doesn't really understand its own advice.

That's all my brain can process right now, and I've been here way too long. I haven't even gotten into periodization and several other EXTREMELY IMPORTANT aspects to hypertrophy. So, it would be good of you to read those links I've provided.

I hope you guys get something from this.

-Oleo

 

[Pook]

One thing I love about this forum is that you can tell things all the time, but people seem to understand the point better when you illustrate the issue with them.

For example, weight training is super-saturated with lots of hype and confusing information. After all, everyone believes they are right. Luckily for me, Sosuave send an Oleo my way as illustration to this point.

Originally posted by Oleo
Claims of 30lbs of muscle mass in a month are ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

It is three months, not one month. And this is provided you know what you are doing.

You can NOT gain a pound of muscle mass every day. If you're gaining over 2lbs a week, you are likely gaining fat.

Actually, the fat level tends to decrease.

I've been waiting for someone to bring up that the increased weight/mass could be partly due to water. No one has and now I am a disapointed Pook. After all, water fills up your muscles and the program has a very high water requirement (which I don't follow).

Anyone who has gained lots of mass will tell you that the body does not operate steadily. The body grows in spurts. A few weeks I will gain nothing. Then, all of a sudden, I gain four pounds.

Although I haven't ordered his over-priced book, from what I've read of skinnyguy.net, it's simply a compilation of conventional, post-steroid, bodybuilding mag rhetoric. Nothing you can't get from any conventional bodybuilding sight with MINIMAL research.

Actually, skinnyguy.net's program isn't that conventional. If you try to do those tests to become a fitness trainer, you'll find how different Ellis's program is.

But the point is that consistancy is the most important thing. Some details are arguable but the general principles are not.

If you want to get serious about this stuff, and really learn about the science behind training (and why most of the methods of skinnyguy.net and the bulking guide on this site are NOT REMOTELY the most effective methods), here are a few links to start you out. These links are infinitely more insightful than anything you can read at skinnyguy.net or here at sosuave and guess what, the info is FREE.

How can someone say whether or not the program is worth it without ever having seen the program? I leave the answer up to the reader.

I have shared my results as have others. Does Oleo tell us his results on his 'correct' theories? No, he merely goes on.

It's a lot of tough reading so I'll give you a small synopsis of some of the key ideas.

Those links are the reason why I got this program in the first place.

Look at them. They are made with awful writing, full of grandiose jargon and academic auras. It is hardly readable.

Now, I have a question.

When a writer uses such academic language for something so simple, like a workout program, is he trying to illuminate the subject or is he trying to get his writings to glitter, regardless that they don't illuminate anything?

If you look at skinnyguy.net, you do not find academic jargon. It is very simple and easy to read. The frontpage doesn't even really scratch the surface of all the detail the program has. Never once in it does Ellis sound like some intellectual ruminating about bodybuilding.

1. Training a muscle group once per week is NOT the most effective way of training. For one thing, it's nearly impossible to separate the body into specific training days without a significant amount of overlap. Bench press will hit the lats and front delts, squats hit the whole posterior chain as well as the lower back, deadlifts hit pretty much everything, etc.

Hitting multiple muscle groups is the entire point of compound exercises. Everyone knows this except Oleo, who believes he just discovered it.

Squats and deadlifts spur growth throughout the entire body. They do far more than people realize.

More importantly, muscles only take about 48 hours to recuperate, after which, they decondition in a catabolic state.

Um, no. This is only possible if you train like a girl.

The only way to spur muscle growth is to hit your muscles hard. If your muscles are being hit hard, they will certainly require more than 48 hours to heal.

Remember, your muscles grow in your sleep, not in the gym. More is not better.

You are pounding your CNS with multiple failure sets and letting your CNS recover for a week, NOT your muscles, which recovered long ago.

Skinnyguy.net's program is not about going to failure. This is why this thread is meant to ask people who have done the program, not people incorporating what they think by reader the free (advertised) side.

It sounds like you just read some pages on hypertopophy and are analyzing all this. It all comes down to this:

Have you made gains?

This is more effective for STRENGTH training, NOT muscular hypertrophy (what a bodybuilder is after). Therefore, a three times per week, full body workout with about two sets of a BASIC COMPOUND exercise for each body part, taken about two reps short of failure would be a MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE (and biologically correct) way of training. Which, again, brings me to my next point.

This is like someone reading somewhere that nuts improve strength and then the person goes around saying that while the conventional foods are 'good', it is NOT AS EFFECTIVE as lots of NUTS. This is theory gone mad.

But does is make the gains? No answer, Oleo just goes on.

3. Doing five sets of bench press will NOT train more muscle fibers than two sets.

It will if you increase the weight.

You're muscle is like a whole bunch of rubber bands strung together along side of each other. By pulling at each end, ... providing a constant hypertrophy-inducing atmosphere.[/quote][/b]

Blah blah blah. Lots of theoritical, but I hear nothing down-to-earth. Does it make gains? No answer.

4. Nutrition is important, but believe it or not, the way most conventional programs would have you eating is far in excess of what is optimal.

But what is optimal? Oleo does not define it. He just goes on.

But, those programs need some way for you to see 30lbs in a month or whatever, so they give it to you in fat, which you put on by overeating.

When you gain so much mass, there is some fat that is gained. But this is fresh fat which is easily lost turning the fot loss portion of the program.

Most people find they had higher fat levels when they were skinny then when they got big.

How do you explain this?

Has everyone who has taken Ellis's program lying and Oleo, who hasn't even looked at the program let alone actually do it, know the hidden truth?

Food is NOT converted into muscle mass.

For skinny guys, growth does depend on the calorie input.

Muscle building is a METABOLIC function.

What! You had to read those bad articles to figure that out?

Therefore, eating enough (and the correct) food to elicit a positive metabolic response is all that's need.

Exactly. What should you eat? Why this instead of that? What are the numbers on all the foods and how do they react to musle growth. Ellis's program has all the details on this.

I hope you guys get something from this.

I know I did!

Come on, Oleo. We can recite theories until the cows come home. Tell us your gains.

 

[madgame]

lol I havent looked at those links but I can tell u there are also links and books that are written in a language that everybody can understand.

I've been waiting for someone to bring up that the increased weight/mass could be partly due to water. No one has and now I am a disapointed Pook.

I dont want u 2 be dissapointed Pook ;-) Im not saying, that the program isnt good, but I bet u if u gained 30lbs in 3 months which would be 10lbs per month its most likely not just muscle. Maybe you gained a little fat here and there, maybe you didnt and thats the reason your fat levels decreased. If ure 150 lbs with a bf level of 10% its 15lbs of fat. If ure 180lbs after gaining weight and you`re bf is under 18lbs which would be up to 3 more lbs of bf, your bf percentage would still be lower than before.
However you probably knew this already and those few lbs hardly play a part anyways.

Even if u dont believe me, I bet u that a lot of the weight u put on is water. Last time I cut down for like 2 months (and its not like I didnt eat anything at all) I lost like 4% of body fat, but my weight decreased by about 20lbs or even a lil more. Realistically speaking the weight loss that consisted of fat was about 8 lbs and my lifts stayed almost the same (for example I benched a weight that I had benched 6 times right before only 5 times).
So approximately 12 lbs of the weight I lost were due to decreased water stores. Had I been using creatine prior to this diet it would of even been a few more lbs. I think most people dont really have an idea how easily your weight can go up/down just because of the water thats stored. I hear people on TV talking about their diets and that in the first 2 weeks they lost like so many lbs but now they just cant seem to get any further (thats because the 15lbs u lost consisted of like 2lbs of fat, the rest was water).

Anyways when I went into "mass building mode" again :-D after a few weeks all of a sudden I had gained like 15lbs again. Now I coulda fooled myself and said wow I gained 15lbs of muscle mass. But realistically speaking most of that weight was just water that was stored in my body again.

So Im not trying to say anything bad about that program itself (Ive only read the free section anyways), but when I hear about those incredible gains of mass in such a short period of time, Im pretty sure a lot of it consists of water (/fat). (By the way, eating dairy products for example will store more water in your body for example..just as an example).

 

[Oleo]

“It is three months, not one month. And this is provided you know what you are doing.”

So, what did you mean when you said this? "But despite what your body building friend says, you can gain 30 pounds of muscle mass within a month. I'm still gaining mass and I love it."

"Actually, the fat level tends to decrease."

Where are your sources to back this claim?
Here's my source to refute it:
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=13;t=23

"Anyone who has gained lots of mass will tell you that the body does not operate steadily. The body grows in spurts. A few weeks I will gain nothing. Then, all of a sudden, I gain four pounds."

That is dependent on several factors (diet, activity, stress, etc.). Ideally, you would be growing at a consistent rate (which is possible).

"But the point is that consistancy is the most important thing. Some details are arguable but the general principles are not."

I agree with both of those statements assuming:
a) You are consistent in practicing effective principles.
b) The general principles are based in reputable knowledge and study.

"How can someone say whether or not the program is worth it without ever having seen the program? I leave the answer up to the reader."

I can say that in part because of the information described on his site, and more importantly, because I know means of achieving similar objectives in a more effective, less costly manner. Unfortunately, you're also implying that one has to shell out $80 BEFORE he can assess the program’s worth.

"I have shared my results as have others. Does Oleo tell us his results on his 'correct' theories? No, he merely goes on."

First of all, my results are completely irrelevant. That was a major point in my post. The idea is that you should be educating yourself and forming a personalized strategy based PRIMARILY on scientifically credible research and data, NOT ON "IT WORKED FOR ME" PSEUDO-LOGIC. Second of all, they're not MY theories, and in most cases, they're not theories at all. They're scientific observations made by noted researches in biology and physiology. I INVENTED NONE OF THIS. I'm simply regurgitating the info I've learned from my extensive personal research in the area.

"Those links are the reason why I got this program in the first place.

Look at them. They are made with awful writing, full of grandiose jargon and academic auras. It is hardly readable."

I have little trouble reading, understanding, and applying the key principles. I'll readily admit: It is considerably more involved and does take more effort to understand and apply than skinnyguy.net's cookie cutter program. That's why I said, "The ONLY reason I can see for purchasing this guy's book is if you TRULY need something to hold your hand throughout the (minimally effective) process, which, if you do your research, you won't."

"Now, I have a question.

When a writer uses such academic language for something so simple, like a workout program [If it were that simple, everyone would have 200lbs of muscle], is he trying to illuminate the subject or is he trying to get his writings to glitter, regardless that they don't illuminate anything?

If you look at skinnyguy.net, you do not find academic jargon. It is very simple and easy to read. The frontpage doesn't even really scratch the surface of all the detail the program has. Never once in it does Ellis sound like some intellectual ruminating about bodybuilding."

I would rather discuss the principles and the basis for those principles, rather than the delivery of them.

"Hitting multiple muscle groups is the entire point of compound exercises. Everyone knows this except Oleo, who believes he just discovered it."

You're putting words in my mouth. Nowhere do I claim that I discovered ANY of this. Moreover, I understand perfectly the point of doing compound exercises. That's why they're usually the only thing I do. You, however, apparently didn't understand the point I was making about overlap and the inefficiency of most splits.

"Squats and deadlifts spur growth throughout the entire body. They do far more than people realize."

-"Not only that, but squats do not cause whole body growth. They only have the potential to cause growth in those muscle groups directly involved in the squatting movement. However, because squats involve at least half of the body, you can increase overall bodyweight as a result of so much of the body’s musculature being stimulated to grow. Despite Kraemer’s claims that the miniscule spikes in Test and GH as a result of squatting without resting too much in-between sets is responsible for muscle growth, it isn’t entirely true. Otherwise, if these minute spikes in Test and GH had any significant physiological effect, squatting would put hair on your chest." -Bryan Haycock

"Um, no. This is only possible if you train like a girl.

The only way to spur muscle growth is to hit your muscles hard. If your muscles are being hit hard, they will certainly require more than 48 hours to heal.

Remember, your muscles grow in your sleep, not in the gym. More is not better."

Following that logic, in a situation where one would have to hunt everyday or do heavy manual labor, a person would slowly shrink because of not taking a week off after every task. Anyone who knows a construction worker will tell you that is not the case. Also, in studies where the gastrocnemius of mice were cut (thus placing all of the stabilizing and mobility demand on the soleus) the soleus grew about twice as large to compensate. These mice weren't walking for an hour and then resting for a week.

-"In order for the loading to result in significant hypertrophy, the stimulus must be applied with sufficient frequency to create a new "environment", as opposed to seemingly random and acute assaults on the mechanical integrity of the tissue. The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it." -Bryan Haycock

 

[Oleo]

"It sounds like you just read some pages on hypertopophy and are analyzing all this.”

I assume you meant hypertrophy, and yes, that's exactly what I've done. Rather extensively in fact. What have you done to understand the mechanisms for growth?

"It all comes down to this:

Have you made gains?"

Yes (I'll finally stoop to answering this essentially irrelevant question for the sake of argument), rather significant ones considering my rather busy and stressful lifestyle. Not to mention being sick and dieting like ****. I would say that twelve or so pounds of muscle (Note: MUSCLE, I took off three or four pounds of mass as an estimation) gain is pretty damned good for the three or four months that I've been incorporating some of these principles into my training. And believe me, you WILL notice differences by incorporating just few basic, biologically and physiologically founded principles into your routine. This is, of course, NOT to say that my gains should mean **** to you. Because I am, quite likely, not like you, and the principles aren't based on MY gains. They're based on scientific observation.

"This is like someone reading somewhere that nuts improve strength and then the person goes around saying that while the conventional foods are 'good', it is NOT AS EFFECTIVE as lots of NUTS. This is theory gone mad."

Well, if there was a good degree of credible, scientific analysis that proved that nuts improve strength, I'd be eating a lot of nuts and I'd be recommending that my friends do as well. However, if a few people told me, "Wow, I ate a lot of nuts and I got stronger, therefore nuts make you stronger, therefore if you ate nuts you'd get stronger," (this is skinnyguy.net's logic) I might be a bit more skeptical, and more importantly, I'd do what I could to understand IF nuts make me stronger, and WHY nuts make me stronger, and HOW to get nuts to make me stronger. To find that info, I'd turn to a nut expert, who has spent most of his life studying nuts, and has a degree in nut science. I wouldn't be asking the people that said, "Wow, I ate a lot of nuts and I got stronger, therefore nuts make you stronger, therefore if you ate nuts you'd get stronger."

"But does is make the gains? No answer, Oleo just goes on."

I've already addressed this (non-)point.

"Blah blah blah. Lots of theoritical, but I hear nothing down-to-earth."

What do you not understand about my example? I find the rubber band example exceedingly "down to earth" and easy to grasp. And you're telling me your claims and skinnyguy.net's aren't grounded in the theoretical!? Please...

"Does it make gains? No answer."

Does IT make gains is somewhat of a different question. Anyway, I'll address that question in this way: Here is a link to a forum thread regarding people's results with a training program that utilizes scientifically founded principles: http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=14;t=21

"But what is optimal? Oleo does not define it. He just goes on."

I have a thread entitled "Important Training Links" with nutritional links to several places where you can find what is optimal for you.

"When you gain so much mass, there is some fat that is gained. But this is fresh fat which is easily lost turning the fot loss portion of the program.

Most people find they had higher fat levels when they were skinny then when they got big.

How do you explain this?"

What's difficult to explain? More importantly, how does this relate to my argument?

"Has everyone who has taken Ellis's program lying and Oleo, who hasn't even looked at the program let alone actually do it, know the hidden truth?"

I haven't accused anyone of lying. I never even said the program didn't work. In fact, I'm sure it does work! My message has never been that it didn't work or that anyone who's had success with it is lying. My message has been that there are cheaper, more effective ways of UNDERSTANDING and manipulating the means to achieve your goals. Also, the truth is not hidden; I’ve provided several useful links to it.

"For skinny guys, growth does depend on the calorie input."

I never said it didn't.

"What! You had to read those bad articles to figure that out?"

I never said that either.

"Exactly. What should you eat? Why this instead of that? What are the numbers on all the foods and how do they react to muscle growth. Ellis's program has all the details on this."

You could read some of the nutritional links I've posted in "Important Training Articles." OR: "The ONLY reason I can see for purchasing this guy's book is if you TRULY need something to hold your hand throughout the (minimally effective) process, which, if you do your research, you won't."

"I know I did!"

Good for you!

"Come on, Oleo. We can recite theories until the cows come home. Tell us your gains."

Already did! Not that they bear any relevance to the studies or the argument at hand.


-Oleo

 

[Pook]

This entire thread is whether or not skinnyguy.net is legit or not. We have pointed out that the site is legit. We have pointed out that it works for skinnyguys.

So what is with these posts that haven't seen the progran, haven't done the program, yet are criticizing it?

This, alone, is absurd.

Then, when we post our results, we are accused of either being dishonest or confusing muscle with fat. This has gone from comical to insulting.

First, Anthony Ellis did gain thirty pounds of muscle mass in three months as his fat levels decreased.

Second, I gained almost similiar results in my first three months. It takes a lot of hard training and solid diet. It is not the same for everyone.

"But you must have gained fat when you gained such mass"

It is impossible to gain such mass without a little body fat. However, the second part of the program is a fat loss which removes whatever little body fat was gained (and you gain a little when you go up 30 lbs in a few months). Fat that is recently gained is easy to take off. Look at Anthony's stats on the front page and you will see the change from his fat loss.

I raised the possibility that water helps part of the weight. But one does not put on 30 lbs of water in a few months. It is only to maximize whatever is there.

As for me, I don't even do the water part of the program. Yet, my gains are still similiar.

The skinnyguy.net forum is filled with similiar results.

If I was gaining the fat you were saying, then it would be impossible for me to have my current washboard abs. And why do photographers like taking my picture all of a sudden?

Oleo, my muscle cells are expanding probably more of a rate than yours are. If one thing is for sure, there is a lot of hype in the fitness world. Always be wary of people who speak garbled academic prose (a general good rule for life) especially with fitness. There are many people who think they can re-invent the wheel, or at least convince others to.

As long as you use free weights and eat decently, anyone who is consistant will get some type of results. The rub comes that the programs that do not work will show a quick plateau.

I have not yet reached a plateau. I have gained like 60 lbs of muscle mass and I am still gaining.

I think part of the reason why I am able to gain so much is because of my initial skinny state. Skinny guys are 'skinnier' than average guys, right? So to become 'average' I already had to gain 10-20 lbs. When I was at 40 lbs, some people still thought I was thin!

Oleo was nice enough to link to a 'testimonies' page. Unfortunately, the gains are only around 10 lbs of muscle mass, still in the range of a 'newbie' who (consistantly) goes to the gym. What is even funny is that in the testimonies page are people complaining that their arm mass is shrinking.

I do not dispute the 8-10 lb muscle mass gains on the testimony page. Yet, Oleo disputes my gains.

'It must be additional fat.'

No, because whatever little fat was added got wiped out by the fat loss program. The fat measurements show a definite decrease from my starting point.

So what else are you going to say? That I do not know how to do fat measurements? That everyone who has gone through the skinnyguy.net program still cannot determine muscle from fat?

Oleo says that skinnyguy.net is not using science but 'looking at what I did' type attitude. This couldn't be further from the truth as even the person who first reads the program gets swamped with all the science and details. Science debates break out on the forum occassionally.

This is why you must actually have used the program and seen it before you accurately judge it.

There is a reason why I asked Oleo for his 'gains'. He wants to talk about 'theories', I want to talk about 'facts'. Reality is a stubborn thing and does not bend to our theories. This is why it is fruitless to talk about theories.

You will know the tree by its fruit. And the fruit I've gotten from this program (probably more from my discipline to stay on it) has stunned even fitness trainers.

(For example, I don't disagree with Diesel's 'guides' at all! They are quite fine, just not enough detail in them I needed to gain mass. Unlike others here, I have no desire to say my way is the only 'true' way and everyone else is stupid. I'm just saying that this program works)

From all the 'hypertrophy' and all, we hear only 10-15 lbs which is still in the newbie range (meaning that a newbie can get it by merely consistantly going to the gym and decent diet). Anyone can add inches to their chest by hitting the chest everytime they go to the gym (that is mostly water), but few can keep adding to it after an initial growth.

When you have gained 30 lbs of muscle mass and are still growing, then you have got something.

But I think the reason why you refuse to believe mine, or Anthony Ellis, or other people's gains on the skinnyguy.net is for you to continue to believe that...

It's clear to me that sosuave is NOT the place to go for advice on fitness. If this is your one-stop-shop for workout and nutrition advice, you haven't even scratched the surface. Claims of 30lbs of muscle mass in a month are ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE. You can NOT gain a pound of muscle mass every day. If you're gaining over 2lbs a week, you are likely gaining fat. Not to mention all of the out-dated bodybuilding myth spewed around here.

Although I haven't ordered his over-priced book, from what I've read of skinnyguy.net, it's simply a compilation of conventional, post-steroid, bodybuilding mag rhetoric. Nothing you can't get from any conventional bodybuilding sight with MINIMAL research. The ONLY reason I can see for purchasing this guy's book is if you TRULY need something to hold your hand throughout the (minimally effective) process, which, if you do your research, you won't.

Is it more reasonable to conclude that Pook, Anthony Ellis, and other forum members are telling the truth about themselves or that they are all in concert in LYING?

Of course, Oleo, you will never believe of the significant gains we've acheived in a relatively quick manner. The reason why is because of your PRIDE. In order for you to use your broad brush and paint everyone here as 'outdated' and you, all alone, as 'brilliant' because you did 'minimal scientific research' (and we did, what? Read brochures?) you must conclude that our gains are not true.

But our gains ARE true so where does this leave all your little theories? Theory! I want to move to your land of Theory, Oleo, because in theory everything is correct.

But in reality, what you say comes up short.

We want results, not theories. And all I ams aying here is that this program GETS those results.

(This thread is a good illustration of my disdain for the 'intellectual' types who write a lot yet say very little, who exist in a bubble world of theories and get scared to talk about reality.)

 

[madgame]

1. I said the few lbs of bf that u gained hardly play a part.

2.

I raised the possibility that water helps part of the weight. But one does not put on 30 lbs of water in a few months. It is only to maximize whatever is there.

No but you can definetly put on like 20lbs of water in like 2 or 3 weeks (afterwards the mass u gain should mostly be muscle though)

I dunno what the "water part" of the program, that you`re not on is, but if you eat more than average, which you definetly do if you`re on this program (which everybody else should do if they are looking to gain mass), the amount of water stored in your body will go up tremendously. I know this from my own experience. Its not uncommon for my weight to go up/down for up to 10kgs (which would be 22lbs) when I switch from either bulking to cutting or cutting to bulking (and I know for a fact that I dont gain that much muscle/lose that much fat just in the first one or two weeks just in the first 2 weeks of either bulking up or cutting down)

When I was at 40 lbs, some people still thought I was thin!

(If somebody gains 40lbs of pure muscle mass (at average height i guess?) nobody would still think they`re "thin". Definetly not)

4. Im not saying allll you gained by this program is water (or fat). I believe u when u say youve gotten much more muscular and that the program works.

5. I know I havent done the program and Im not criticizing the program itself. All the tips Ive read on the page sound pretty reasonable and a lot of the things Ellis criticizes are mistakes I made when I was still a beginner. I figured out what I did wrong by reading about that stuff in a few books and by searching the web for terms like "how to gain mass" and stuff like that. Theres a lotta stuff that is written in a type of language that everybody can understand. Still I think the program is GOLD for everybody who doesnt feel like putting too much time into searching for that stuff themselves, cause it seems to me like everything u need to know is summed up in that program (but hey I cant really tell cuz I havent read the whole program yet ;-)). Im just criticizing the stats though I dont mean to say that everybody on here who says that they gained x pounds of muscle is a liar (for further explanation look above ;-)).

I do believe though, that you cannot say that the testimonials on the skinnygut.net page itself and the gains Anthony Ellis made are any proof at all. Come on, open your eyes just look at those fitness commercials telling you this or that stupid thing which is like 49.99$ or whateva will help you burn a lot of fat and get a sixpack - by just working out your abs. "It'll only take you 2 or 3 weeks to go from this body (showing some real fat guy's stomach)
to this body (showing some guys abs whose probably been working out for years). Believe it or not but people do say such stuff to sell their ****. I wouldnt really be surprised if the testimonials on the skinnyguy.net page are fake.

Besides could anybody please explain to me how comes that Ellis weighed 167lbs after 12 weeks at 6.8% of bodyfat and then after 16 weeks weighs 170lbs at 5.7% of bodyfat though his lifts stayed exactly the same? Think about it he loses about 2 lbs of fat
his lifts stay exactly the same (which I think might also be a little suspicious), thus no muscle growth but he weighs 3lbs more all of a sudden? Sorry lol but I think these stats are just fake.
(PLEASE TELL ME WHY IM WRONG ABOUT THIS ONE)


BOTTOM LINE:

Dont flame me. Im definetly NOT saying that the program isnt good.Im actually sayin the complete opposite. I just doubt the stats ;-)

 

[icepick]

Originally posted by madgame
(If somebody gains 40lbs of pure muscle mass (at average height i guess?) nobody would still think they`re "thin". Definetly not)

They would if you are real skinny to begin with.

Say you have a guy at 6-4 and 200 lbs. That could be considered thin. But what about the guy at 6-4 160 lbs. That would be considered REAL thin.

If you have a reasonably low body fat with small bones, you need to put on a LOT of muscle to not be considered 'thin' anymore.

Besides could anybody please explain to me how comes that Ellis weighed 167lbs after 12 weeks at 6.8% of bodyfat and then after 16 weeks weighs 170lbs at 5.7% of bodyfat though his lifts stayed exactly the same? Think about it he loses about 2 lbs of fat
his lifts stay exactly the same (which I think might also be a little suspicious), thus no muscle growth but he weighs 3lbs more all of a sudden? Sorry lol but I think these stats are just fake.
(PLEASE TELL ME WHY IM WRONG ABOUT THIS ONE)

He was probably on fat loss at the time. It is tougher to move heavy weight on fat loss because your body is working on less energy. Your lifts usually decrease a bit. Just because your lifts do not increase does not mean that there is no muscle growth.

 

[FIRE]

Last summer I started going to the gym, I really enjoyed it so after a few weeks I did a search on the internet, stumbled upon this skinnyguy.net site and got interested.

It looked like the typical scam site though, so I investigated it for a week, looking up 'Anthony Ellis'/'skinnyguy.net' on usenet and internet forums yet I didn't find anything useful, just ignorant people who hadn't even seen it, bashing it.

I figured if he would be selling air or had something to hide he wouldn't be available by email and on a forum. Pook and Drex's posts convinced me so I decided click Pook's link and give it a try.

It is indeed kinda expensive, but I pay about $200 a month for supplements and food. In the end I have to say it was worth it because it made me stick with going to the gym and dieting and giving me a clue as to what to do in the gym. I found out I was overtraining and not eating enough.

Reading the book gives you all the practical knowledge you need to have about gaining mass, it's like Arnold's enciclopedia encyclopedea for skinny people, everything is covered - diet, supplements, eating, your body, hormones, muscle gain, fat loss, exercises; and it gives you a pre-made training program and eating program which has proven to work for 99% of all skinny guys. You CAN indeed get this information from the internet, but you the book beats it, it's perfectly practical and readable. The forum is really nice also If you want to investigate for yourself, may I recommend to you the articles on gaining-mass.com and bodybuilding.com. The free ebook on skinnyguy.net tells you the keys to gaining mass. If you read it take them seriously, they are very important.

Now I have to say judging from the results on the skinnyguy forum that there were only about 10 out of maybe 600 active members who gained over 30 lbs in the last year. These are rough estimates, I am talking about members who are POSTING on the forum though so it must be a lot more out of 9,216 total members. I guess about 1-10% of people who start the program gain over 30 lbs. A lot of people buy it and don't even start or quit after a few months. Those who start it gain about 10-15lbs (average) in the first three months, and maybe 25lbs after half a year (I am talking MUSCLE, they may also gain a few pounds of FAT). I myself have went from 143lbs,10.5%BF to 154lbs,9%BF in 17 weeks (14 actual weeks of training and dieting)

The ones who posted on the forum with the best gains on this program were of 69, 62, 50 lbs in 1-2 years.

As far as the stats of Anthony, they are real, and the photos are also (notice the newspaper?). He participated in an EAS transformation contest in 1997, and became finalist. The pics are from this contest and it had to be steriod-free. All finalists were tested, you can see it in the video. Now those crazy gains in 12 weeks are probably because he had been working out for 8 years without the right diet.

AE is still posting his stats, at 7/13/2003 it was:

Weight: 180 lbs
Body fat: 8.70%

LBM: +0.91lbs

After 7 years he gained about 53 lbs of MUSCLE (from 135lbs), so Pook gaining 60lbs, even if it isn't all muscle, is pretty good. Pook, are you sure your scale was working well? And could you PM me a photo?

As you can see, he also gained 0.91lbs of LBM on his last week of fat loss. 3lbs/wk gains are also perfectly possible while on fat loss.

Furthermore, you will NEVER gain over 10lbs in water weight, even if on creatine, as long as you are not taking certain drugs or steriods which retain water. Your weight can also fluctuate throughout the day, and your clothes and shoes also weigh a few pounds.

 

[Oleo]

I feel I've presented a strong enough argument to show people that they have several effective options for pursuing their goals. I could do another point-by-point analysis of Pook's arguments but, upon reading his reply, it's very unclear to me if he read or understood any of the ideas in my post. If he DID read it, why would he accuse me of calling him and others using skinnyguy.net liars? Or why would he accuse me of saying that it doesn't work? I clearly stated in my previous post:

"I haven't accused anyone of lying. I never even said the program didn't work. In fact, I'm sure it does work! My message has never been that it didn't work or that anyone who's had success with it is lying. My message has been that there are cheaper, more effective ways of UNDERSTANDING and manipulating the means to achieve your goals. Also, the truth is not hidden; I’ve provided several useful links to it."

It comes down to different paths. Pook has presented one path (his path) and I have presented a few others. All of you have options laid before you and, based on the information both of us have contributed, you have means to choose the path that best suite YOU. All I have presented is information, it's up to you to decide what to do with it. Working out isn't communism.

-Oleo

 

[Shiftkey]

I haven't accused anyone of lying. I never even said the program didn't work. In fact, I'm sure it does work! My message has never been that it didn't work or that anyone who's had success with it is lying. My message has been that there are cheaper, more effective ways of UNDERSTANDING and manipulating the means to achieve your goals. Also, the truth is not hidden; I’ve provided several useful links to it.

I don't think anyone said skinnyguy.net provides exclusive information. You're paying for information that's condenced and correct. With most free information you have to wade through a bunch of crap to find the good stuff. As a newbie to fitness, odds are you won't even recognize the good stuff, or even worse you'll mistake the crap as good stuff. The goal of skinnyguy.net is to simplify that process by providing the customer with only the good stuff.

 

[madgame]

Say you have a guy at 6-4 and 200 lbs. That could be considered thin. But what about the guy at 6-4 160 lbs. That would be considered REAL thin.

6-4 160lbs would be considered skinny/real thin I guess.

6-4 200lbs. Come on, I mean I dunno about you and anyone else, but I definetly wouldnt consider somebody who weighs 200lbs at 6'4 thin. Actually Im 6'3 and 205 at the moment and everybody keeps telling me how big and muscular Ive become (sorry if that sounded ****y).

If you have a reasonably low body fat with small bones, you need to put on a LOT of muscle to not be considered 'thin' anymore.

I think thats not perfectly correct. Lets say somebody whose 220lbs at 20 percent bodyfat wouldnt really look less "impressive" (with his shirt on) if he cut down and was 200lbs at 10% bf. The bodyfat doesnt really play a part here.

Of course small bones will make you look thinner/skinnier, if u mean a person's frame by small bones, but if u have a small frame u just weigh less all in all and no matter how skinny somebody is, if he packs on 40 freaking pound of pure muscle he wont look "thin" anymore. I know a lotta guys who are like 5'11. Some of them weigh around 175-180 lbs and look really big (considering they are no gym-heads)...as in big frame, broad shoulders and pretty strong.
On the other hand I know some guys at the same height who weigh like 140 and they look real skinny. 40lbs of mass (if were talking about muscle) is just a really huge difference. Just think about 2 people u know that are about the same height who have a weight difference of 40lbs (implying that both are not fat or thick).

Now those crazy gains in 12 weeks are probably because he had been working out for 8 years without the right diet.

I dont claim to know all there is to know about weigh-lifting and Im far from those guys using scientific expressions, but I know for sure that this is something only somebody who has no clue about weight lifting or the way a human body works if its puttin on muscle would say. If you work out without the right diet its just a waste of time. Its not like you gonna gain more weight if you suddenly start eating properly because you had been working out without eating properly for years. Thats just an assertion with no substance at all.

COME ON FELLAS BACK ME UP HERE...

Furthermore, you will NEVER gain over 10lbs in water weight, even if on creatine, as long as you are not taking certain drugs or steriods which retain water. Your weight can also fluctuate throughout the day, and your clothes and shoes also weigh a few pounds.

Im not stupid I always weigh myself without clothes in the morning after going to the toilette.

Its pretty funny. I bet you`re one of the guys who says that ppl need to back up what they claim otherwise ure not gonna believe them but at the same time you just say stuff you THINK is right without any proof at all.

Last time I had just finished cutting down I was at 84-85kgs (185-187 lbs), now Im about 93kgs (205lbs) and neither my lifts nor my bf levels are hardly higher than before, as its only been weeks since Ive cut down. Think about the off-season and in-season weights of professional bodybuilders. Ronnie Colman. Off-season weight about 300. Competition weight 257. You probably think he loses around 40lbs of fat before he goes to a competition, right?

By the way, do you know how much of your body is water? 70%.

As a newbie to fitness, odds are you won't even recognize the good stuff, or even worse you'll mistake the crap as good stuff. The goal of skinnyguy.net is to simplify that process by providing the customer with only the good stuff.

I think this might be a little exaggerated but all in all, thats exactly what Im saying.

 

[madgame]

Thanks to this type of training, I reached my goal weight of 170 lbs by the 8th week!

When I was ready to start my "cutting-up" phase, the articles on Anabolic Burst Cycling provided me with much needed, timely information. I was able to drastically reduce my bodyfat from 9.5% on May 5 (at a weight of 170 lbs) to 6.8% on May 30 (at a weight of 167 lbs).

Starting at 135lbs at 11.0 percent of bodyfat (as it says on skinnyguy.net) this means he gained 37lbs of muscle in just EIGHT weeks. Let's hate on lol

 

[WORKEROUTER]

Holy sh*t, looking at the lengths of these threads for this topic, it's no wonder you guys need to buy into this system.

Here's an idea: instead of typing up a thread the size of a short story, go to the gym and actually WORK OUT. YES, that means actually DOING THE ROUTINES, not just talking about them.

 

[California Love]

anthony ellis was just an extremely potential filled ectomorph. Re-read what Oleo posted. His information is precise and accurate.

 

[Shiftkey]

Here's an idea: instead of typing up a thread the size of a short story, go to the gym and actually WORK OUT. YES, that means actually DOING THE ROUTINES, not just talking about them.

If only it were that simple. A lot of guys DO work out but don't make the gains they want (myself included). Diet is alot more important than working out, and that's the most complicated part. I plan on giving this program a try mostly for diet advice once I move out (I've determined it's impossible to diet right in my parents house).

 

[Drex]

Wow cant believe this thread is still going.

I've recently hit 170 lbs still following the program. Original weight: 129 lbs. You do the math!

 

[FIRE]

Originally posted by madgame

[...] If you work out without the right diet its just a waste of time. Its not like you gonna gain more weight if you suddenly start eating properly because you had been working out without eating properly for years. Thats just an assertion with no substance at all.

COME ON FELLAS BACK ME UP HERE...

I read someone saying this before buying the book and I must have misinterpretated what Ellis said in it: "I believe one of the main reasons I was able to grow so much muscle in such a short time, is that I naturally have a large amount of Type IIB muscle fibers." Now I guess you are right and he means he had a lot of them by genetics, not by training. And he had not been training for 8 years continiously of course.

[...]Think about the off-season and in-season weights of professional bodybuilders. Ronnie Colman. Off-season weight about 300. Competition weight 257. You probably think he loses around 40lbs of fat before he goes to a competition, right?

By the way, do you know how much of your body is water? 70%.

It is normal for them to have 15-40lbs of extra BF during off-season (which is not too hard to lose actually).

And it is true that about 60-70% of your body is water but this doesn't fluctuate a lot (sorry, I cannot back this up now, maybe someone else can explain this in more detail?). You'll just piss out all the excess water, though there are some drugs and steriods which retain water as a side effect, and creatine brings along some extra water (which is actually not real water weight, water weight is stored just under the skin and the fluids creatine brings into the muscles are stored within the cells themselves).

 

[Shiftkey]

You'll just piss out all the excess water, though there are some drugs and steriods which retain water as a side effect, and creatine brings along some extra water (which is actually not real water weight, water weight is stored just under the skin and the fluids creatine brings into the muscles are stored within the cells themselves).

60-70% of your weight stored just under the skin? Water is virtually everywhere in your body. Water weight is exactly as it sounds. Weight from water -whether it's in your skin or your blood or your organs or your muscles.

I also want to say again, because you're perpetuating misinformation...CREATINE IS NOT A DRUG.

 

[madgame]

And it is true that about 60-70% of your body is water but this doesn't fluctuate a lot (sorry, I cannot back this up now, maybe someone else can explain this in more detail?)

I know what you mean. Usually it doesnt fluctuate a lot. You just weigh like 2 3 or 4 pounds more at night then in the early morning after going to the toilette. But for example when u stop/ start eating dairy products your body will be able to store more/less water. This dairy product thing is just an example though. I`ve made the experience that your weight will just go up by eating more for bulking or go down if u suddenly eat kinda little and start a strict diet. Anyways, whether you believe Im right or that Im just imagining somethign which is not true hardly plays a part. I cant really tell if people on here are kinda lying or telling nothing but the truth, but I think Ive been a little too small-minded cause Ive always read that its impossible for your body to gain more (pure) muscle than about 22lbs a year, and read stuff saying that those were the biggest gains ever witnessed by certain researchers or whatever. Anyways if Im perfectly honest I cant really deny that (way) higher gains might be possible (though I have a hard time believeing it..). HOWEVER this isnt the point in this whole thread I guess and it doesnt even matter how big the gains were.

Anybody on here seems to agree that this skinnyguy.net program is legit and has good advice. I think nobody ever denied that on here.

So after all it isnt important at all whether some person gained 150 lbs of muscle in 5 days or whether they gained 10lbs of pure muscle mass in a year. The only thing that counts is that its working. Nobody says its not. Some ppl say its less expensive to jsut get that information from the net. Some say it`d be too hard/ take too long for a beginner to distinguish the right information from the wrong....Anybody has to decide themselves whether they want to buy that program or not. PERIOD

I think this thread should be closed now (as it seems to me like any further discussion about this program will get us nowhere). (I think) the initial question was whether that program was good or not and yes it is. We shouldnt keep on discussing and quarreling like little kids whether its possible to gain this or that much muscle with this program. The only thing that counts is whether its a good program or not...

---please close this thread---