Functional Strength vs. One-Dimensional Strength

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by USMarine75

e.g.

Usain Bolt (200lbs) could outrun us all. He ran a 9.69 100m in 2008, with approx a 1.7 (1st) 10 yd split. But, at 346 lbs Memphis DT Dontari Poe ran a 1.7 10 yd split (and 4.98 40 yd).


vs


Who's functionally stronger? Well, if they're playing football and trying to stop the run while being doubleteamed by two 300+ lbs o-linemen, then I'll go with Poe. If they're running a race, Bolt is still only the clear cut winner if they run more than 10 yards... Under 10 and nearly any NFL player could match or beat him (Titans RB Chris Johnson ran an official 1.4 10 yd split).

e.g.

With respect to comparative strength it's all in how you measure it and what you find impressive. Clearly your definition is 'multiple of bodyweight' (xBWT)... in that case the record squat is 6.01 xBWT by a guy that weighed 114 lbs and squatted 662 lbs. Comparatively, the overall record is a man that weighed 308 and squatted 1268 lbs for a 4.18 xBWT. So the bigger guy weighs almost 3 times as much, but he squats twice as much. I think both are equally impressive, but to say that the 114lbs guy is somehow functionally stronger (or better) is false. (b/c, regardless of multiple of bodyweight, at the end of the day the bigger guy is still twice as strong)

And sorry but there's no way you're pounding 5000+ C a day and maintaining weight. You're either gaining muscle or fat at that point, unless you're running marathons every day, training with Tiger as a Navy SEAL, or smoking crystal meth. (That's over twice your daily caloric intake recommendation)

I'll go back to my first statement, since you're hell bent on convincing us that you're more fit than us 'muscle heads', go have this conversation with someone at your gym... that way you can test your functional strength theory. Maybe I'm getting bitchy here, but I've spent over 20 years in the gym and I don't like someone taking a dump on my chest without me paying extra for it.

I don't mean to come off as saying I'm stronger than anyone or better. I'm trying to understand the difference between the two, and just like you can't see it from my perspective, it's hard for me to see it from yours.

In my eyes, that 6.01 is stronger than the 4.18. That's simply how I see it, and although I can try, I can't really change my opinion more than saying that yes, the overall weight is more.

That ant article really helped me see it a bit differently though, showing how that smaller guy was able to lift a larger load in comparison to his body.

As for big guys at the gym, I've had the discussion with quite a few. Some tell me how they can lift larger overall weights and are therefor stronger than smaller guys (I never use myself as the example), others see my point and agree. It isn't really universal, as I've talked to big guys that are able to do just as many A, B, or C as I can, and others who can't. I never said I was better than any of them; I just see a difference in the way our bodies are able to work.

And as for the calories thing, you don't have to believe me, but put it this way; I know guys who can eat a full bag of Doritos in one sitting, then put away a Big Mac and a large fry and coke, and that could just be lunch. Right there, your looking at over half the calories (albeit good ones) that I was taking in. And they wouldn't gain a pound.

People's bodies are different. Some guys can get huge as hell the natural way, some couldn't gain a pound of they injected bacon fat into their bodies.

[SirMyghin]

Originally Posted by USMarine75

And sorry but there's no way you're pounding 5000+ C a day and maintaining weight. You're either gaining muscle or fat at that point, unless you're running marathons every day, training with Tiger as a Navy SEAL, or smoking crystal meth. (That's over twice your daily caloric intake recommendation)

I have actually witnessed that one before when I worked with a guy washing windows. Our job was not too strenuous but he would actually put away 4000 Cal during the day, and still eat at night after going to the gym and the like. He was 145 lbs the entire time. Some ectomorphs can have it pretty rough, until they age some. My comments were constantly how the .... are you eating so much

[Uncreative123]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

You know what's even funnier than my weight? Bruce Lee weighed about 125 and was an inspiration for professional body builders and athletes everywhere.

This thread wasn't made to put people down. I'm a hard gainer, meaning that, when gaining, I have to consume round 5000 calories a day, powerlift, and spend my day feeling like I'm going to puke for months before I can gain a single pound.

I hear this all the time. Why don't you post your actual diet. I'm pretty sure you're just estimating your cal intake, and I'm also pretty sure it's way off. Especially when you seem to be blown away that people can eat a bag of chips and a combo meal from MuckDonalds and not feel like they're going to die.

I guarantee you don't eat anywhere near the amount you should to gain weight. 5,000 cal a day of CLEAN calories is an insane amount of food. Shitty cal, still a lot, but no way you wouldn't gain weight.
Jay Cutler eats from 4k-7k and he's about 12 of you.

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by Uncreative123

I hear this all the time. Why don't you post your actual diet. I'm pretty sure you're just estimating your cal intake, and I'm also pretty sure it's way off. Especially when you seem to be blown away that people can eat a bag of chips and a combo meal from MuckDonalds and not feel like they're going to die.

I guarantee you don't eat anywhere near the amount you should to gain weight. 5,000 cal a day of CLEAN calories is an insane amount of food. Shitty cal, still a lot, but no way you wouldn't gain weight.
Jay Cutler eats from 4k-7k and he's about 12 of you.

Home made gainer for snack one, and snack two, snack three out of six meals a day:

two scoops of protein (240 cals)
One tbsp olive oil (120 cals)
One tbsp flax oil (120 cals)
One tbsp real peanut butter, the kind you have to stir (150 cals)
Two cups soy milk (300 cals)
4oz Blue Goodness (85 cals)

That alone is 1015 calories, no bullshit in it, and when I was lifting I was drinking three of those a day on top of three large meals consisting of pasta (with olive oil), tofu, spinach, sweet potatoes, among other things, not to mention my post-workout shake made of pea, soy, and hemp protein.

[Explorer]

A few years ago, I was surprised at how important one aspect of strength could affect my personal life.

I was dating a woman but had to get up early the next morning, so I had said good night and left, only to be surprised at how clear the stars were that night, and how amazingly visible Orion was. I went back, knocked on the door, and asked her to come outside for a second. "But I don't have shoes on!" "Not a problem." I picked her up in my arms and carried her out, and we watched the stars for a while.

Since then, I've discovered that my personal definition of functional strength is being strong enough to sweep a woman off her feet, and to not tire out while holding her for a while. *laugh* This also allows one to fulfill one of the requirements of the Tao of Steve when first starting out with a woman:

Be desireless.

Be excellent.

Be gone.

Just doing something without it being a display, but a fact of life ("No shoes? I'll carry you.") impresses women.

----

My father was a fire fighter, and we used to talk about strength in the context of his job. There were people who wanted to join the force, but who were not physically capable of running up a flight of steps with the necessary mask, tank, axe, and of carrying another adult person with all that stuff.

If the average person weighs a certain amount, and if it's important to be able to carry an average person, then it borders on humorous to argue in the middle of a fire that really, although they're going to burn to death because you can't lift them and run, you're really proportionally stronger than the people who got out.

My dad had a pet name for people who would argue about the absolute requirements of how much one had to be able to carry. That name was "useless deadweight." People like that get you killed when there's actual danger around, which sounds like a good circumstance for which to test functionality.

Sorry, but there are two "R"s, reasons and results. Only one counts. Can you guess which one it is?

----

Sorry to have to go in this direction, but really, you're coming across as having a special definition of strength in order to feel special. Smaller guys can lift more in proportion to their body weight, but are more likely to fold after a decent punch from those who are absolutely stronger, no arguments about "Well, proportionally...!".

Ants are proportionally the strongest things going, but given how little effort it takes to squish one, it seems like there are limits on how far one can take arguments for proportional strength.

Glad I've never had to worry about someone arguing about why they couldn't carry someone wounded out of a combat zone, but were functionally stronger. That would suck ass, not to mention raising the risks of friendly fire. *laugh*

[Uncreative123]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

Home made gainer for snack one, and snack two, snack three out of six meals a day:

two scoops of protein (240 cals)
One tbsp olive oil (120 cals)
One tbsp flax oil (120 cals)
One tbsp real peanut butter, the kind you have to stir (150 cals)
Two cups soy milk (300 cals)
4oz Blue Goodness (85 cals)

That alone is 1015 calories, no bullshit in it, and when I was lifting I was drinking three of those a day on top of three large meals consisting of pasta (with olive oil), tofu, spinach, sweet potatoes, among other things, not to mention my post-workout shake made of pea, soy, and hemp protein.

Well you did pretty much what I anticipated: you didn't list your diet after I asked you to list your diet, which leads me to conclude (again) that you were only estimating the actual calories you were getting, which again I think is off. I don't know what you expect anyone to tell you from this. A "large meal" isn't the same for everyone. And again, I really, really sincerely doubt you were eating three large meals of the quality/quantity you are saying you did. I didn't even eat that much when I weighed 100 lbs. more than you and I didn't have problems gaining.

A lot of the calories listed in your drink are worthless too. I don't even count calories anymore as macros are far more important. Getting 5,000 cal a day doesn't mean much if it's nothing but cake or olive oil. The pea, soy, and hemp protein is a really poor choice as well.

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by Uncreative123

A lot of the calories listed in your drink are worthless too. I don't even count calories anymore as macros are far more important. Getting 5,000 cal a day doesn't mean much if it's nothing but cake or olive oil. The pea, soy, and hemp protein is a really poor choice as well.

I don't think you understand what an ectomorph is, but I'm just curious as to how these calories are useless, and how pea, hemp, and soy are poor choices of protein.

Seeing as size is the only thing that holds any credibility with you, I think you should give this guy some advice if you think vegan supplements are poor and useless:



If you're really curious; two cups of pasta (444), tbsp olive oil (120), two cups of tofu (176), large sweet potato (about 150), cup of spinach (about 10). Three times a day, and I guess my estimate of 5000 was a bit under. Then again, I don't eat the same things the same way every day, and I haven't been on a gaining diet in well over a year.

Originally Posted by Explorer

A few years ago, I was surprised at how important one aspect of strength could affect my personal life.

I was dating a woman but had to get up early the next morning, so I had said good night and left, only to be surprised at how clear the stars were that night, and how amazingly visible Orion was. I went back, knocked on the door, and asked her to come outside for a second. "But I don't have shoes on!" "Not a problem." I picked her up in my arms and carried her out, and we watched the stars for a while.

Since then, I've discovered that my personal definition of functional strength is being strong enough to sweep a woman off her feet, and to not tire out while holding her for a while. *laugh* This also allows one to fulfill one of the requirements of the Tao of Steve when first starting out with a woman:

Be desireless.

Be excellent.

Be gone.

Just doing something without it being a display, but a fact of life ("No shoes? I'll carry you.") impresses women.

----

My father was a fire fighter, and we used to talk about strength in the context of his job. There were people who wanted to join the force, but who were not physically capable of running up a flight of steps with the necessary mask, tank, axe, and of carrying another adult person with all that stuff.

If the average person weighs a certain amount, and if it's important to be able to carry an average person, then it borders on humorous to argue in the middle of a fire that really, although they're going to burn to death because you can't lift them and run, you're really proportionally stronger than the people who got out.

My dad had a pet name for people who would argue about the absolute requirements of how much one had to be able to carry. That name was "useless deadweight." People like that get you killed when there's actual danger around, which sounds like a good circumstance for which to test functionality.

Sorry, but there are two "R"s, reasons and results. Only one counts. Can you guess which one it is?

----

Sorry to have to go in this direction, but really, you're coming across as having a special definition of strength in order to feel special. Smaller guys can lift more in proportion to their body weight, but are more likely to fold after a decent punch from those who are absolutely stronger, no arguments about "Well, proportionally...!".

Ants are proportionally the strongest things going, but given how little effort it takes to squish one, it seems like there are limits on how far one can take arguments for proportional strength.

Glad I've never had to worry about someone arguing about why they couldn't carry someone wounded out of a combat zone, but were functionally stronger. That would suck ass, not to mention raising the risks of friendly fire. *laugh*

Maybe we have total different taste, but most women I know find large men disgusting.

As for the punch comment, obviously you've never watched boxing or MMA or any other sort of fighting sport in your life, because there are weight classes that go below my current weight.

And in the end, I'm not trying to define special strength to make myself feel better; I'm totally comfortable with being a small guy. I always have been, and I always will be. Again, you seem to be under the impression that all small guys are incapable of carrying loads under pressure? I've seen fire fighters that were small, ropy and lean, and I doubt they are any less functional than the larger guys.

Same goes with soldiers.

[Explorer]

Dude, you talking about what you view as my ignorance came across as total posturing. I can verify that I've never watched an MMA match, but but I'm fairly certain I've studied and taught martial arts longer than you've been alive. *chuckle* (That “reasons and results” thing is from Sifu Bakari. I’ll have to call him. *laugh*)

You’ve undermined your entire point, incidentally. Your bringing weight classes into the whole thing acknowledges that on average, a smaller guy doesn’t have the same functional strength and endurance to take on a larger guy. The bigger guy hits harder, the smaller guy crumples. Reasons of proportional strength don’t matter as much as the results of having measurably more strength.

Average smaller guys can’t carry as much extraneous weight beyond their own bodies as the average larger guy. The strongest big guy will always be measurably stronger than the strongest smaller guy, in the same way even a small elephant will be measurably stronger than the strongest large human.

A larger fire fighter can normally carry a larger human out of a fire than a smaller fire fighter. I don't care how scrappy you think the smaller fire fighters are, it's the same reason there's weight classes in fighting. (Again, thanks for that example, which acknowledges what you don't want to.)

----

Short version: Dude, you asked if you were wrong, said you were happy to admit it… but you keep arguing, meaning you don’t accept it. Science and physics have it wrong according to you, so there’s no use discussing it when the only way for you to continue arguing is to go the tinfoil hat route. Once someone dismisses the facts, nothing will convince that person, and it's not worth trying... but it is fun to see how far they'll go with their arguments. *laugh*

If it makes you happier, let me congratulate you on making the huge point that an ant is mightier than an elephant. Although even school children might perceive things differently, at least you can bask in being right.

[Uncreative123]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

I don't think you understand what an ectomorph is, but I'm just curious as to how these calories are useless, and how pea, hemp, and soy are poor choices of protein.

No, I don't think YOU know what an ectomorph is. If you are even eating half of what you claim and not gaining any weight you have a serious genetic disorder and need to see a physician. It's that simple.

Soy raises estrogen levels- again, really simple. Probably goes hand in hand with your not gaining weight. You probably have estrogen through the roof (your responses are some what indicative of that too, lol)

Seeing as size is the only thing that holds any credibility with you, I think you should give this guy some advice if you think vegan supplements are poor and useless

Are steroids vegan? Guess the verdict is still out on that one. You don't know what this guy puts in his body, but that's a moot point anyway.

Maybe we have total different taste, but most women I know find large men disgusting.

You probably don't know any women then. See girls like boys, and women like men. Girls say the kind of shit you're talking about and most of them are full of shit. I know first hand and I've seen it many times. It's hilarious. Just like the nerd who says the 10/10 blonde w/ fake tits is really "2/10; elbows too pointy". Yet we all know if they ever got approached they'd blow a load in their pants before they could even get their wallets out to buy her a drink.

[Explorer]

Wisdom from another land:

I got an email just now from a friend who lives in Spain. He works out in the gym, runs on the beach every day, and used to work carrying tanks of propane up to people's apartments. (A lot of buildings don't have gas lines, so each unit has its own tank.) He left that job and now delivers wine, including to restaurants on upper floors with no elevator.

He's strong as a bull, and his email reminded me of his complaining about people who work on developing a tiny muscle, but who have never learned to use that strength in the real world, using only the artificial world of machines and free weights. Given that he was carrying around 50k plus the tank weight, and then going up a few floors, I'd argue that he was functionally stronger than some of those who can't combine exercises.

That still keeps a neat division between functionally strong and proportionally strong. If you can't lift that full tank of propane to your shoulder repeatedly during the day and jog up a few flights, you're not as functionally strong as Jorge Luis. He was able to perform a function, carrying those tanks (and now carrying wine cases) up flights of stairs.

This still doesn't support the case that proportional strength means someone is stronger, but at least there's a better example of what functional strength really is, instead of the odd but wrong definition proposed earlier.

[AngstRiddenDreams]

Explorer, raping the assholes of newbies like always.

[SenorDingDong]

Originally Posted by Explorer

Dude, you talking about what you view as my ignorance came across as total posturing. I can verify that I've never watched an MMA match, but but I'm fairly certain I've studied and taught martial arts longer than you've been alive. *chuckle* (That “reasons and results” thing is from Sifu Bakari. I’ll have to call him. *laugh*)

You’ve undermined your entire point, incidentally. Your bringing weight classes into the whole thing acknowledges that on average, a smaller guy doesn’t have the same functional strength and endurance to take on a larger guy. The bigger guy hits harder, the smaller guy crumples. Reasons of proportional strength don’t matter as much as the results of having measurably more strength.

Average smaller guys can’t carry as much extraneous weight beyond their own bodies as the average larger guy. The strongest big guy will always be measurably stronger than the strongest smaller guy, in the same way even a small elephant will be measurably stronger than the strongest large human.

A larger fire fighter can normally carry a larger human out of a fire than a smaller fire fighter. I don't care how scrappy you think the smaller fire fighters are, it's the same reason there's weight classes in fighting. (Again, thanks for that example, which acknowledges what you don't want to.)

----

Short version: Dude, you asked if you were wrong, said you were happy to admit it… but you keep arguing, meaning you don’t accept it. Science and physics have it wrong according to you, so there’s no use discussing it when the only way for you to continue arguing is to go the tinfoil hat route. Once someone dismisses the facts, nothing will convince that person, and it's not worth trying... but it is fun to see how far they'll go with their arguments. *laugh*

If it makes you happier, let me congratulate you on making the huge point that an ant is mightier than an elephant. Although even school children might perceive things differently, at least you can bask in being right.

I admitted that I was wrong, and when the figures were brought out (the 6.01 vs. the 3.14 or whatever the numbers were) I simply stated that yes, I believed that the 6.01 was stronger.

Since then the thread has been totally derailed into talk about women and getting punched.

But, since you seem to be that guy who has a personal experience in every field possible and a story to back it up every time, and since you tend to argue far past the point when you've made it, I will leave my final reply as; yes, you were right, up until women/punching post, you were completely right, and I learned a lot from that article.

But no, with the martial arts/fighting in general thing, I believe you are as wrong as wrong can be. Case in point, I don't believe you understand what goes behind a punch, because weight is only a small portion of it. It comes down to explosive strength, which again is further from the topic but since you insist on shitting on me for disagreeing, explosive strength is far more to due with speed than it is with weight. As for small guys getting beat up easily, look up Royce Gracie, if you will, and you will see that (when there were no weight classes) you couldn't be more off.

[SirMyghin]

Originally Posted by JWGriebel

But no, with the martial arts/fighting in general thing, I believe you are as wrong as wrong can be. Case in point, I don't believe you understand what goes behind a punch, because weight is only a small portion of it. It comes down to explosive strength, which again is further from the topic but since you insist on shitting on me for disagreeing, explosive strength is far more to due with speed than it is with weight. As for small guys getting beat up easily, look up Royce Gracie, if you will, and you will see that (when there were no weight classes) you couldn't be more off.

Sorry but 'explosive strength' is also known as impulse, or momentum (depending on which disciplines you belong to) and it is m*v. Mass times velocity. Force is of course rate of change of momentum (F=m*[dv/dt]) (or "F=ma" in laidmans terms of Newtons 2nd law). That aside, larger muscles contract faster. You don't see sprinters with tiny little stick legs, quite the opposite. How fast you hit something is only a portion of the equation, and a spec of dust flying at you regardless of speed won't have the mass to generate an impulse that is worth while. You are over simplifying the physics of the scenario. As I feel you will go back to the whole Bruce Lee punching thing from here, a bigger stronger guy, using all the same techniques, would do even more damage. The biggest factor in that technique is not speed, but directionality. Everything is moving the same way and acting together, in a line, which gives the largest additivity of force (simple vector addition), or just much more linear than a conventional 'punch'.

[TRENCHLORD]

Yelp, larger muscles contract faster.
That's why even doing a complete whole body program and gaining much upper-body (non jump-assisting) muscle, you can improve your vertical leap greatly by squating and other leg building excersises.

In other words body-weight and vertical leap both going up at the same time.
Of coarse, if one cut out the upper-body specific lifts but continued the leg-work it'd be even greater of a % improvement.

Now I'm not voluntering for this one, but if the muscle (any muscle) were cut off the bone and hooked up to a torque tester, it would have both greater strength and speed after it was developed more (larger).

edit; like most things though, there is a point of diminishing returns. Getting sterodial super-huge like Ronnie Coleman probably goes past that point.

[AngstRiddenDreams]

Muscle cut off the bone hooked to a torque tester...

[Infamous Impact]

Honestly what should be considered functional strength should be strength that depends on whether you would need it in the next week or so. Also, like the above, bigger muscles do help with strength and power. A perfect example is Kevin Levrone racing Dwain Chambers. He managed to run a really low time, and would've stayed with Chambers if he had better form and and a better start.

[TRENCHLORD]

Originally Posted by AngstRiddenDreams

Muscle cut off the bone hooked to a torque tester...

Well at the very least, even if it didn't prove anything, somebody would be getting a free meal .

[AngstRiddenDreams]

And again,

[Explorer]

Alright, you guys have made me hungry. I'm heating things up to make a steak....

[Aevolve]

Originally Posted by Explorer

Alright, you guys have made me hungry. I'm heating things up to make a steak....

Hook it up to a car battery and a torque tester before you cook it.

[AngstRiddenDreams]

[soliloquy]

take it this way, a really fat person will have a REALLY easy time losing weight. all he/she has to do is lift a few cookies and they loose tons of calories in doing so. now a skinny guy/girl is to lift a few cookies, and they wont really loose too many calories.
technically speaking, its the same work done for two different people. so why is it that a fat person looses more? because they are bigger.

muscle wise, i have a friend who weighs as much as me at 180. and hes an inch shorter than me at 5'11. he can do about 20+ pullups, and about 6 single handed pullups. i can only do about 8 pullups and zero single handed pullups. why? his body fat percent is at about 3% while mine is at about 19%. we both work out, and i have been working out for much longer than he has. however, he is naturally stronger than me.

[EtherealEntity]

Originally Posted by soliloquy

his body fat percent is at about 3%

Is this your friend?

[Wingchunwarrior]

Originally Posted by soliloquy

take it this way, a really fat person will have a REALLY easy time losing weight. all he/she has to do is lift a few cookies and they loose tons of calories in doing so. now a skinny guy/girl is to lift a few cookies, and they wont really loose too many calories.
technically speaking, its the same work done for two different people. so why is it that a fat person looses more? because they are bigger.

muscle wise, i have a friend who weighs as much as me at 180. and hes an inch shorter than me at 5'11. he can do about 20+ pullups, and about 6 single handed pullups. i can only do about 8 pullups and zero single handed pullups. why? his body fat percent is at about 3% while mine is at about 19%. we both work out, and i have been working out for much longer than he has. however, he is naturally stronger than me.

I really think you need to read this to see the reality of body fat levels.

In the book "SLICED" (by Bill Reynolds & Negrita Jayde), the states of muscularity are objectified as follows (I'll summarize each):

1. Full house = Over or near 20% bodyfat with no visible muscle definition and only a hint of separation between major muscle groups if those groups are very large. Basically a person in this state could be confused for a football linebacker. If you're higher than this bodyfat percentage, you'd be considered overweight/obese.




2. Hard = Some muscle separation appears between delts and upper arm. Abs are still not visible. Approximately 15% bodyfat.



3. Cut = More muscle separation appears particularly in the chest and back, outline of the abs begins to appear slightly. Approximate bodyfat level = 12%


4. Defined = Muscle separations get deeper in the arms, chest, legs and back, and abs appear when flexed. Approx. bodyfat level = 10%


5. Ripped = Abs are clearly visible all the time, vascularity in arms is prominent, chest and back separation is obvious, and face is starting to appear more angular. Condition can be held indefinitely. Approximate bodyfat level = 7-9%


6. Shredded = Striations appear in large muscle groups when they are flexed. You look small in clothes, but look fantastic when you're not. Vascularity appears in lower abdomen and in the legs. Condition can be held for several days with careful dieting. Competitive bodybuilders often aim for this state for competition day. Approximate bodyfat level = 5-7%



7. Sliced = Muscles and tendons begin to appear in the face when chewing, striations appear everywhere and vascularity appears everywhere. Bodyfat levels are close to 3% and subcutaneous water levels are near 0. Condition can only be held for a few hours at a time. Not a healthy condition to stay in due to lower water level.



Anywho, perhaps you can use this guide to determine how far you're progressing. If/when you decide to cut, make sure you give yourself 12-16 weeks to do it. It won't happen overnight, but the results can be striking when you get into the final 2-3 weeks.

EDIT: have to remove pictures, didn't work.

[ShadyDavey]

Interesting thread with some pertinent points- one of the few I've taken the time to read in depth recently. I tend towards "Hard Gaining" but mainly eschew weights as I'm getting old and my shoulders in particular feel the strain if I'm not careful however I did hit them moderately when younger. Now I tend towards bodyweight exercises and running so I would say that my Bodyfat is about 8% or so and I feel absolutely fine......there's no reason to change my methodology - it allows me to fulfil all the tasks I am likely to encounter which is functional enough for me!!

That's it, I'm not going to weigh in on one side or the other except to say "horses for courses - do whatever works for you"