And yes fat cell do pop out out, no it’s not out of nowhere. If you are 200lbs and 20% then that’s 40lb of fat. If a natural person goes to 300, assuming he stays at 20% which is highly unlikely thats 60lbs of fat. Yes Cells were added. 20 extra lbs of fat, and all kinds of new cells. I doubt even he would go back up to 300. 99% of extreme bulkers would not go up to the weight they originally did if they had to do it all over again. Specially competitors.
[/quote]
This is false. You don’t add more fat cells just because you hit a certain weight or because you are 20% body fat. Things like this are the reasons education gets mentioned so much.
As far as someone not going back up to a heavier weight once done before, maybe the job has been accomplished. I don’t ever plan on carrying as much body fat as I did near 300lbs, but to claim it had no effect on how I look now and didn’t aid in the level of muscle mass gained or the rate it was gained is ridiculous. Once again, you would have to at least give it the credit of leverage increasing strength gains not to mention what has already been stated about weight set points.
I hear that often from big guys who bulked up…as if bulking up is a secret. Many also leave it out completely if you ask how they did it.
You know…you would think the fact that so many have that in common would stand out to someone…but I guess not.[/quote]
I didn’t say you create more fat cells because you hit 20%. I said all things being equal in body fat percentage, you undoubtedly have more fat comparing 200lbs to 300lbs. This is basic education, basic math. A 200lbs man at 20% is 40lbs a 300lbs man at 20% is 60lbs. That can’t possibly be denied. Even if miraculously you went from 200 to 300lbs and loss 5% fat, your still 10lbs of fat more. Still again basic math. Once your fat cells are full they create new cells, basic biology. When losing fat, your cells drain oils not destroy cells, again basic biology.
Realistically you would have to go down to a competition weight and conditioning to see how much mass and strength you have relative to all the other competitors who have never bulked up to 300lbs. If you put 10% more fat on a lot of competitors a majority of them would be your same size without ever hitting anywhere close to 300lb.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
Once your fat cells are full they create new cells, basic biology. When losing fat, your cells drain oils not destroy cells, again basic biology.
[/quote]
Basic biology is that you have billions of fat cells that are not all filled up completely. Gaining weight does not mean new fat cells were created. You will pretty much have the same general number of fat cells for life barring extreme circumstances.
[quote]Realistically you would have to go down to a competition weight and conditioning to see how much mass and strength you have relative to all the other competitors who have never bulked up to 300lbs. If you put 10% more fat on a lot of competitors a majority of them would be your same size without ever hitting anywhere close to 300lb.
[/quote]
This is irrelevant unless I have a twin who didn’t bulk up. What would someone else with different genetics have to do with me? Why would it matter if some other guy could build even more muscle mass leaner? The goal is for ME to reach and extreme level of size, not someone else. I already know there are people with better genetics than me. That’s the point. I still got big and was not some genetic freak.
[quote]Scientists in Sweden at the Karolinska Institute say that fat cell numbers are set at adolescence and stay the same all of your life.
[/quote]
Yeah, once again, that is why education gets mentioned so much here. Y’all done yet?
That is why we should avoid getting kids fat at all costs. It is also why people telling adults they will gain fat cells if they gain weight are not correct.
There isn’t an optimal point. There are diminishing returns to eating more, but there isn’t an upper limit. For example the first 1000 calories excess might add 1lb of muscle the next 1000 might add 0.5lbs. The 1000 above that will add say 0.3lbs. But it’s still adding. (Pulled those numbers out of my arse just to illustrate the point)
That’s prof X’s point, he’d rather carry on eating to gain the muscle than limit himself. Seems perfectly reasonable. The extra muscle is worth more to him than adding some fat for a while.
If you don’t want to add the fat then you’re limiting your muscle growth by eating less for the sake of gaining less fat. But that’s your choice.
Really don’t see what all the fuss is about.[/quote]
So, you need to add fat in order to gain muscle? Is that what is believed to be true. Then how do you explain the many people i know, and myself included, that have not only gained size and not gained any fat, but have lost fat.
[/quote]
I didn’t say you need to add fat to gain muscle. I said it would limit muscle growth if you try to limit fat gain.
So yeah you could add 6lbs of muscle and lose 4lbs of fat (rough numbers), but if you ate more you could have added 8lbs of muscle and lost 1lbs of fat, you could have eaten more still and gained 9 lbs of muscle and added 3lbs of fat.
The point is eating more means more muscle, and more fat (or less fat loss if you want to look at it that way). Whether you are willing to give up muscle gains to avoid the fat gain (or less fat loss) is your preference.
Mind you, I have posted this research before and do have a significant background in biology.[/quote]
Yup, clearly you are.
Didn’t take any Research Methods with Bio, I’m guessing?
Not only did you link three times to the same exact study, but Spalding’s study is irrelevant because of her flawed methodology.
I’m sure with your significant background in Biology, you can read through the analysis (second link) you posted and find what’s wrong with the methodology. If your significant background in Biology proves absolutely worthless, I’ll be happy to draw you a picture.
There is one caveat - the obese people included in the study were all obese from an early age. So it’s unclear if the fat cells of people who gradually gain weight during adulthood will eventually reach some maximum size and trigger an increased production rate for new cells. It’s a possibility, but it’s unlikely to be a very important one because surprisingly few people become obese as adults. While 75% of obese children grow up to be obese adults, only 10% of those with a healthy weight do the same.
There is one caveat - the obese people included in the study were all obese from an early age. So it’s unclear if the fat cells of people who gradually gain weight during adulthood will eventually reach some maximum size and trigger an increased production rate for new cells. It’s a possibility, but it’s unlikely to be a very important one because surprisingly few people become obese as adults. While 75% of obese children grow up to be obese adults, only 10% of those with a healthy weight do the same. [/quote]
I wrote that in can happen in extreme circumstances. Gaining 20lbs isn’t an extreme circumstance. Gaining 100lbs and more might be if it is all fat. Gaining weight doesn’t equal “obesity”.
There is one caveat - the obese people included in the study were all obese from an early age. So it’s unclear if the fat cells of people who gradually gain weight during adulthood will eventually reach some maximum size and trigger an increased production rate for new cells. It’s a possibility, but it’s unlikely to be a very important one because surprisingly few people become obese as adults. While 75% of obese children grow up to be obese adults, only 10% of those with a healthy weight do the same. [/quote]
I wrote that in can happen in extreme circumstances. Gaining 20lbs isn’t an extreme circumstance. Gaining 100lbs and more might be if it is all fat. Gaining weight doesn’t equal “obesity”.[/quote]
In that case, I agree completely.
I don’t get why this should be a concern to anyone who doesn’t get completely sloppy when packing on mass.
So, you need to add fat in order to gain muscle? Is that what is believed to be true. Then how do you explain the many people i know, and myself included, that have not only gained size and not gained any fat, but have lost fat.
[/quote]
cuz ur a vampyre and u no alot of other vamprys and most vampyrz follow leangainz? im pretty sure martin beckim is a vampire 2? n 1 else think dis is rite?? pleaz?
Less discussion of “Adipose Cellularity”, and more zany Frank Yang videos! I’d like to see a “Frank vs. All-You-Can-Eat Sushi restaurant” vid, or perhaps something where your maids fix you a gargantuan feast.
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
This thread is veering off course…
Less discussion of “Adipose Cellularity”, and more zany Frank Yang videos! I’d like to see a “Frank vs. All-You-Can-Eat Sushi restaurant” vid, or perhaps something where your maids fix you a gargantuan feast.[/quote]
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
This thread is veering off course…
Less discussion of “Adipose Cellularity”, and more zany Frank Yang videos! I’d like to see a “Frank vs. All-You-Can-Eat Sushi restaurant” vid, or perhaps something where your maids fix you a gargantuan feast.[/quote]
X 2. I too would like to see young Frank-en-stien sitting at an all you can eat sushi restaurant ; )
