PDA

View Full Version : Hungry on SS?


Matthew Bacorn
03-05-2009, 07:43 PM
I don't get it. I recently started SS, am eating more than I ever have, and am more consistently hungry than I have ever been (like, before every meal this week).

From what i understand, i shouldn't even want to look at food, yet i can't seem to get enough. The weights are still going up, but they're still light so that doesn't mean much.

I am eating paleo with dairy(at least until easter), am allergic to eggs, and get the runs from too many nuts. Food is unlimited from the college cafeteria, and pretty good too.

Here is a typical meal schedule

b-fast: ~8 pieces of bacon
some sausage or ham or whatever other meat they serve
1 or 2 bananas
2 or 3 glasses of milk

lunch 3 burger patties or 3 grilled chicken breasts
and a sweet potato or two
dinner butter and/or olive oil over everything
some green stuff
2 or 3 glasses of milk
a banana on the way out

The way i figure it, this is closing in on 4,000 calories a day, and I am hungry before every meal. And I mean Hungry. A few months ago i was eating half of this and wasn't near as hungry. WTF?

Has this happened to anybody else? Do i need to put on weight that bad?

Steven Low
03-05-2009, 08:36 PM
What's your age, height, weight and lift numbers?

If you're underweight, yes, you probably need to drastically put on weight..

Matthew Bacorn
03-06-2009, 08:53 AM
oh, right. I don't think i'm that underweight... granted none of it is muscle

Im 18, 5'11'', and somewhere around 157-160 (a couple weeks ago)

Wunsler program (almost)
squat will be 155 tomorrow
press was 65
DL was 180
Dips (for bench) are 3x8 tomorrow
chins are 3x8 tomorrow

Nothing is really that hard yet. my biggest issue is shoving my knees out on the squat

Mike ODonnell
03-06-2009, 09:13 AM
your body wants more bricks as you are signaling to it to build a bigger house....so eat.

Gavin Harrison
03-06-2009, 10:17 AM
oh, right. I don't think i'm that underweight... granted none of it is muscle

Im 18, 5'11'', and somewhere around 157-160 (a couple weeks ago)


Nope, you're really underweight.

Edit: I'd probably go off paleo to gain weight, bread and beans aren't going to kill you, but they are very dense food, in terms of calories, and some extra protein in the beans.

Matthew Bacorn
03-06-2009, 07:31 PM
Thanks yall.

I think the mirror will be my biggest enemy for a while. something about being the fat kid in middle school. maybe some newspaper and tape could solve this

Someone here said Eat hard, Train hard, Rest hard.

Resting is easy.

i though eating would be fun and training would be hard. i think i had it backwards
wait a minute... eating still is fun. thats right. now its snack time

George Mounce
03-07-2009, 05:32 AM
Nope, you're really underweight.


I wouldn't say you are really underweight. I was 155 at 5'11" at 18. I was also a track and hockey player and didn't lift. I could run or skate all day without tiring which was great for my sports.

Your weight is subject to change based on stimuli, I think its a little unjust to put a label on people based on what they are at now. If he was 130 then definitely, but 157-160? Damn I'm trying to get to 165, and do a planche. I wouldn't call someone who can do a planche not strong...hell look at Steven Low. He's around 130 and very strong, but for his bodyweight!

If you want to get big and strong and deadlift 500#, you only really need about 25-30# of weight on your bones and decent genes with some hard work. That's possible easily with your 4000+ calories a day, its just going to take some time. Patience is the key. Eating 4000 cals of dense food versus 4000 calories of not so dense food doesn't matter. What matters is you eat. Milk has the definite advantage over anything else, period! Not enough calories - more milk, put protein powder in the milk, milk, milk, milk! (Another thing you can do instead of drinking water always be drinking something with calories in it, easiest way to get calories throughout the day).

Another note - in 3 years, your metabolism will slow down as you stop growing and you are going to be able to put on weight easily anyways, just something to keep in mind. You are feeding an engine that is still working on building the final product, not improving on a base.

Dave Van Skike
03-07-2009, 08:04 AM
I'm not sure I understand the goal. 5'11'' 160 isn't tiny for a bike racer. for a strenth athlete it is but at that height you'd need to be looking at around 231-275 to fit the mold and so who cares....it's all for fun anyway.

I'd go with trying to eat until you're not hungry a couple times and see how that works. Sounds like you're worried about getting fat...otherwise you'd just be eating everything in site.

Greg Davis
03-07-2009, 08:48 AM
Nope, you're really underweight.

I don't think anyone can tell you about being underweight just based on your height.. all depends on your body type. I'm 5'11-6'0 and only 165lbs.. despite the fact that family and friends keep telling me I'm so much "skinnier" than I used to be I've stopped letting that get to me. I've been up as high as 190 using bodybuilding type nutrition but hell that was not my "natural" body type.. I had to stuff my face with carbs etc. Stuffing your face is not going to work long term IMO.

Check out these pics Robb Wolf points to:
http://robbwolf.com/?p=371
Do these dudes look underweight to you? To me they look fit, strong for their weight, and likely to be healthy into their old age. Yet throw some clothes on them and I'll bet you they'd get their share of "you're really underweight" comments.

Matthew Bacorn
03-07-2009, 11:54 AM
This has all given me some much needed perspective.

George- I hear ya. I played soccer and ran cc in high school, and could run all day. I still wasn't very athletic though. I could just run. And yeah, its milk with every meal for me now.

Dave- The short term goal is just to get stronger. Beyond that, who knows? I enjoy strongman/highland/lumberjack kind of stuff, so I'm thinking I might shift that way eventually. And yeah, I tried to be skinny for so long Im definitely a little hesitant. I think it has more to do with other's opinions than mine. I'm a work in progress.

Greg- Those pictures are crazy! Did you check out the linked article? The guy leaping off the boat... thats not how i learned to fish.

Maybe I just need a piece of whale meat taller than i am. That'd do the trick

Gavin Harrison
03-07-2009, 10:42 PM
Your weight is subject to change based on stimuli, I think its a little unjust to put a label on people based on what they are at now. If he was 130 then definitely, but 157-160? Damn I'm trying to get to 165, and do a planche. I wouldn't call someone who can do a planche not strong...hell look at Steven Low. He's around 130 and very strong, but for his bodyweight!

Hey, I'm not knocking body weight strength, or that everyone's goal should be to get big and strong, or even strong at all (though strength is way cooler than endurance :P ). However, someone eating 8+pieces of bacon+other breakfast meats for breakfast, and 3 burgers / chicken breast for lunch doesn't seem to have the "I want to be skinny and have an awesome strength to body weight ratio" thing going on in their head.

I'm 6' and 170ish. I'm really underweight for good barbell strength, my brother is 6'2" and 230ish, he's not. So, someone an inch shorter than me, 10 pounds lighter trying to get barbell strong should probably shoot for somewhere at least slightly heavier than me, say 180 to 200 lbs, perhaps more (louie simmons may say you need to be in the 242-275 range)... and we all know how hard putting on 20-40 lbs of muscle can be ;)

Rippetoe is also 5' 8", like Steve Low, but is 215 lbs, not terribly fat. Rip's the same height as Steve Low, but there's about a 80 lbs difference in weight. Different weights for different goals.

Sorry for the rant-ish.

George Mounce
03-08-2009, 05:25 AM
Hey, I'm not knocking body weight strength, or that everyone's goal should be to get big and strong, or even strong at all (though strength is way cooler than endurance :P ). However, someone eating 8+pieces of bacon+other breakfast meats for breakfast, and 3 burgers / chicken breast for lunch doesn't seem to have the "I want to be skinny and have an awesome strength to body weight ratio" thing going on in their head.

I'm 6' and 170ish. I'm really underweight for good barbell strength, my brother is 6'2" and 230ish, he's not. So, someone an inch shorter than me, 10 pounds lighter trying to get barbell strong should probably shoot for somewhere at least slightly heavier than me, say 180 to 200 lbs, perhaps more (louie simmons may say you need to be in the 242-275 range)... and we all know how hard putting on 20-40 lbs of muscle can be ;)

Rippetoe is also 5' 8", like Steve Low, but is 215 lbs, not terribly fat. Rip's the same height as Steve Low, but there's about a 80 lbs difference in weight. Different weights for different goals.

Sorry for the rant-ish.

No, its not a rant its a good discussion. I guess the thing that got me thinking was the huge thread on the CF forum awhile back about why barbell strength doesn't work for gymnastic strength, yet gymnastic strength makes you a beast at gymnastics and makes you absolutely a beast for your bodyweight on the barbell. Safe to say, I haven't lost any strength since going to BW stuff (and I test it on my own ever couple of days) in fact I've gained it, most likely due to advances in CNS adaptation.

I agree - to go for big on the barbell, you need to be big. But I guess the way I see it, does everyone need an 800# deadlift? This is purely based on my own journey but in a 500# deadlift with me at 5'11", the adaptation is primarily CNS - it is not in gained muscle or bodyweight. If I wanted to push farther, I would have to gain more weight, but since that isn't a goal of mine I am happy where I sit.

Matthew what you really need here are goals (sorry for the tangent hijack). Eat a lot and work towards those goals. Your weight will figure itself out to obtain the goals you have chosen.

Greg Davis
03-08-2009, 05:54 AM
Rippetoe is also 5' 8", like Steve Low, but is 215 lbs, not terribly fat. Rip's the same height as Steve Low, but there's about a 80 lbs difference in weight. Different weights for different goals.

It's not just about different goals.. its about different body types.. just to use the above as an example, even if Steve's goals were to lift as much weight as possible on a bar that doesnt mean automatically that he's "underweight" until he gains 80 lbs.. I think that would be ridiculous. And conversely if Rip decided his goals were in gymnastics he probably could never reasonably drop 80lbs.

Advice along the lines of "just eat, eat, eat until you are 200lbs" based on someone's height is crazy if totally disregarding their body type / metabolism.

Not trying to antagonize anyone here. I just hate the thought of people forcing down food (or starving themselves)..

George Mounce
03-08-2009, 06:11 AM
It's not just about different goals.. its about different body types.. just to use the above as an example, even if Steve's goals were to lift as much weight as possible on a bar that doesnt mean automatically that he's "underweight" until he gains 80 lbs.. I think that would be ridiculous. And conversely if Rip decided his goals were in gymnastics he probably could never reasonably drop 80lbs.

Advice along the lines of "just eat, eat, eat until you are 200lbs" based on someone's height is crazy if totally disregarding their body type / metabolism.

Not trying to antagonize anyone here. I just hate the thought of people forcing down food (or starving themselves)..

It is about goals Greg. If his goal is to run 26.2 miles then I wouldn't tell him to gain any weight. If his goal is to bench 450, then he needs to get to work on the food part.

And yes, he would be underweight based on that goal (which isn't a body type). You think an NHL player who is 165 pounds is going to be picked up as a starting defenseman? Not a chance - they'd tell him to gain 40 pounds. The weight and structure of the body fits the goals desired by the brain. Since you didn't define body "type" there is nothing I can say to that...type tends to mean ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph.

The only way to gain real weight is to force down food for those not used to it. The reason that GOMAD works is that its liquid, milk is awesome for said goal. You could use other things but either way you need to eat 2300 extra calories per day. Your average person isn't used to eating 5,000 total calories of real food. Of course, you could go the 12-pack of Coke option if that better suits your needs.

I'm not sure where you get people are starving themselves. My goal takes 10 weeks to complete at losing 1 1/2 pounds per week, and since I eat paleo with a bit of dairy, I'm far from starving - in fact I'm losing weight on 2,300 calories a day, a far cry from a starvation diet don't you think?

Gavin Harrison
03-08-2009, 03:00 PM
I agree with George on this one. Body type generally means ectomorph, endomorph or mesomorph, I guess you could throw body structure in to get a bit more detail or variation, but not much. So, the first three basically just mean you'll have to work harder to get your body to fit your needs, maybe. And the later just means you may have somewhat of a ceiling on how high you can go, kinda.

Form follows function. If you want your body's function to be a huge squat, bench and deadlift, or C&J / Snatch, or strongman or w/e, you'll probably be pretty big. If you're goal is to be able to defy gravity by holding your body horizontal to the ground, you'll probably be a little bit smaller, and probably necessarily low body fat, where a BB strength athlete wouldn't worry as much about bf, unless they're trying to make a weight class lower than 275, 308 or SHW..

Just as another data point, Roger Harrell is 5'11" and weighed about 180 lbs as a competitive gymnast. He said he had a hard time with horizontal straight body work (never achieved front lever / planche ?)

Greg Davis
03-08-2009, 05:53 PM
It is about goals Greg. If his goal is to run 26.2 miles then I wouldn't tell him to gain any weight. If his goal is to bench 450, then he needs to get to work on the food part.

I agree if were taking a goal like a 450 bench as a premise, then a lighter person will have to jam the food in. I just think one shouldn't ignore that goals interact with your genetics/bodytype/metabolism whatever you want to call it, and that it doesn't help to just have everyone who wants to improve their bench hit a 200lb bw as a starter.

You think an NHL player who is 165 pounds is going to be picked up as a starting defenseman? Not a chance - they'd tell him to gain 40 pounds.

I'd say if you need to gain 40lbs for something thats pretty extreme- your goal is unrealistic. Unless its a young athlete with a long planning curve.. ie. yes form does follow function but i would have more faith in that over the long term not short term. You definitely have a good point there though, I think I'm just being critical of the extreme cases whereas in most moderate cases you are right.

The only way to gain real weight is to force down food for those not used to it. The reason that GOMAD works is that its liquid, milk is awesome for said goal. You could use other things but either way you need to eat 2300 extra calories per day. Your average person isn't used to eating 5,000 total calories of real food.

I just dont think anyone should be eating 5000+ kcals per day. Seems wrong on a few levels. Some people can gain or maintain a high bodyweight anywhere from 2-4000 kcals.. but get up in to the 5000+ range and its like c'mon thats a little ridiculous unless you were talking some serious hardcore reasons to pursue such a goal.

I'm not sure where you get people are starving themselves. My goal takes 10 weeks to complete at losing 1 1/2 pounds per week, and since I eat paleo with a bit of dairy, I'm far from starving - in fact I'm losing weight on 2,300 calories a day, a far cry from a starvation diet don't you think?

I dont think too many (guys) are starving themselves. But in your case you are shooting for a weight range that is likely very reasonable given what your weight would gravitate to at an "average/normal" caloric consumption somewhere near 2-2.5k per day.

Greg Davis
03-08-2009, 05:57 PM
Went pretty off topic there.. and not so helpful to Matthew (but maybe other cases).

Reread your original post.. dude if you are HUNGRY that is great scale up your meal size until that mellows out. You can't really "overeat" until you reach a point where you aren't hungry for your next meal. And you're at the age where your body might be responding really well to some heavy weights and wants to put some permanent muscle mass on.. sounds good to me.

Dave Van Skike
03-08-2009, 06:19 PM
I'd say if you need to gain 40lbs for something thats pretty extreme-



not really. 40 pound is not much when you're 160.

Matthew Bacorn
03-08-2009, 07:57 PM
Good stuff yall

I think it really comes down to function more than bodyweight, no matter what the goal.

Train for your goal, and eat to facilitate proper recovery from your training. Im willing to bet your bodies will tell you what you need if you give it two things:
-good, quality fuel
-a consistent stimulus

and im not even sure that we need the second one. In the end, I think I really just need to forget about the details and eat, lift, and sleep, making sure that I can recover fully. I would rather eat a little too much and recover fully then not eat enough and tax my body that way. At least for right now