So this thread looks like more of the same. Only Prof X now has a different color tank top in his avi.
Yep, it was good for a second.
it still can be!
X, would you not say that, using Bauber as an example, that the increased fat he added when he got huge would have increased a lot of his negative health markers?
(Sorry for using you as an example big guy, I mean no disrespect)
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
it still can be!
X, would you not say that, using Bauber as an example, that the increased fat he added when he got huge would have increased a lot of his negative health markers?
(Sorry for using you as an example big guy, I mean no disrespect)[/quote]
I don’t know anyone who actually diagnoses patients who would ever only look at one variable to judge a patient’s risk unless it was something like smoking.
A good diagnostician would look at the activity level of the patient and genetic factors along with blood work, not “body fat”.
Body fat is not that great of a risk in and of itself EXCLUDING OBESITY for that to be the focus of “negative health markers” with no other symptoms showing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
it still can be!
X, would you not say that, using Bauber as an example, that the increased fat he added when he got huge would have increased a lot of his negative health markers?
(Sorry for using you as an example big guy, I mean no disrespect)[/quote]
I don’t know anyone who actually diagnoses patients who would ever only look at one variable to judge a patient’s risk unless it was something like smoking.
A good diagnostician would look at the activity level of the patient and genetic factors along with blood work, not “body fat”. [/quote]
Which genetic factors would you examine and which blood tests would you order?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
it still can be!
X, would you not say that, using Bauber as an example, that the increased fat he added when he got huge would have increased a lot of his negative health markers?
(Sorry for using you as an example big guy, I mean no disrespect)[/quote]
I don’t know anyone who actually diagnoses patients who would ever only look at one variable to judge a patient’s risk unless it was something like smoking.
A good diagnostician would look at the activity level of the patient and genetic factors along with blood work, not “body fat”.[/quote]
I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? Obviously Bauber has built a shit ton of muscle so it’s not the same as if he were sedentary (hence my putting unhealthy is “” “”), but excess bodyfat is excess bodyfat regardless of how much muscle you have.
I know you have to look at the big picture, but the bodyfat increase surely gives you a fairly reliable clue as to how the rest of the big picture is going to look.
Dave Tate is another good example. That guy was seriously overweight and had all sorts of health issues from it despite having a ton of muscle and being in the gym 7 days a week. Once he lost all that extra weight the issues cleared right up.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
it still can be!
X, would you not say that, using Bauber as an example, that the increased fat he added when he got huge would have increased a lot of his negative health markers?
(Sorry for using you as an example big guy, I mean no disrespect)[/quote]
I don’t know anyone who actually diagnoses patients who would ever only look at one variable to judge a patient’s risk unless it was something like smoking.
A good diagnostician would look at the activity level of the patient and genetic factors along with blood work, not “body fat”. [/quote]
Which genetic factors would you examine and which blood tests would you order?[/quote]
Family history. General blood work looking for diabetes or cholesterol issues. If someone had no symptoms, there would be little need to focus on “body fat” outside of obesity or recent huge weight changes that are unexplained.
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]
NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.
Look, I don’t have the time today to fuss with 10 different people all focusing on something different to bitch about.
I have answered you. No doctor would look at a patient and indicate health risk JUST BECAUSE THEY GAINED A LITTLE BODY FAT ALONE excluding the activity and lifestyle and genetic history of the patient. That makes no sense.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
it still can be!
X, would you not say that, using Bauber as an example, that the increased fat he added when he got huge would have increased a lot of his negative health markers?
(Sorry for using you as an example big guy, I mean no disrespect)[/quote]
I don’t know anyone who actually diagnoses patients who would ever only look at one variable to judge a patient’s risk unless it was something like smoking.
A good diagnostician would look at the activity level of the patient and genetic factors along with blood work, not “body fat”. [/quote]
Which genetic factors would you examine and which blood tests would you order?[/quote]
Family history. General blood work looking for diabetes or cholesterol issues. If someone had no symptoms, there would be little need to focus on “body fat” outside of obesity or recent huge weight changes that are unexplained.[/quote]
General blood work?
Which tests specifically? There’s a number that indicate diabetes and cholesterol issues.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
it still can be!
X, would you not say that, using Bauber as an example, that the increased fat he added when he got huge would have increased a lot of his negative health markers?
(Sorry for using you as an example big guy, I mean no disrespect)[/quote]
I don’t know anyone who actually diagnoses patients who would ever only look at one variable to judge a patient’s risk unless it was something like smoking.
A good diagnostician would look at the activity level of the patient and genetic factors along with blood work, not “body fat”. [/quote]
Which genetic factors would you examine and which blood tests would you order?[/quote]
Family history. General blood work looking for diabetes or cholesterol issues. If someone had no symptoms, there would be little need to focus on “body fat” outside of obesity or recent huge weight changes that are unexplained.[/quote]
General blood work?
Which tests specifically? There’s a number that indicate diabetes and cholesterol issues.[/quote]
Maybe you should do some research and find that out…since that is not what this discussion is about.
I don’t jump through hoops, kid. Find a new habit.
Dear Professor,
I have asked you kindly at least 10 times to show me where you got that quote from Brick.
You “quoted” him and used that to be a condescending dickhead to me in order to prove your point.
I have asked close to a dozen times where you got that quote from.
Are we to take your lack of a response to mean that you did in fact make that quote up?
Does this mean that you were blatantly lying in rest to further your argument and now that you were called on it your true colors of cowardice show?
No response, no ownership of your lying bullshit, nothing.
Is this the conclusion that we are left with?
With how many times you have shouted “your reading comprehension sucks”, “stop lying”, “address what was actually written” and all that I’m surprised that you didn’t take one bit of your own advice.
I am still waiting for a response but I won’t hold my breath.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
it still can be!
X, would you not say that, using Bauber as an example, that the increased fat he added when he got huge would have increased a lot of his negative health markers?
(Sorry for using you as an example big guy, I mean no disrespect)[/quote]
I don’t know anyone who actually diagnoses patients who would ever only look at one variable to judge a patient’s risk unless it was something like smoking.
A good diagnostician would look at the activity level of the patient and genetic factors along with blood work, not “body fat”. [/quote]
Which genetic factors would you examine and which blood tests would you order?[/quote]
Family history. General blood work looking for diabetes or cholesterol issues. If someone had no symptoms, there would be little need to focus on “body fat” outside of obesity or recent huge weight changes that are unexplained.[/quote]
General blood work?
Which tests specifically? There’s a number that indicate diabetes and cholesterol issues.[/quote]
Maybe you should do some research and find that out…since that is not what this discussion is about.
I don’t jump through hoops, kid. Find a new habit.
[/quote]
Asking a qualified medical professional for their opinion on which combination of tests provide the clearest indicator of diabetes or cholesterol issues… that’s called “doing research”.
If I were to just pick a random set of tests, that would be stupid.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
it still can be!
X, would you not say that, using Bauber as an example, that the increased fat he added when he got huge would have increased a lot of his negative health markers?
(Sorry for using you as an example big guy, I mean no disrespect)[/quote]
I don’t know anyone who actually diagnoses patients who would ever only look at one variable to judge a patient’s risk unless it was something like smoking.
A good diagnostician would look at the activity level of the patient and genetic factors along with blood work, not “body fat”. [/quote]
Which genetic factors would you examine and which blood tests would you order?[/quote]
Family history. General blood work looking for diabetes or cholesterol issues. If someone had no symptoms, there would be little need to focus on “body fat” outside of obesity or recent huge weight changes that are unexplained.[/quote]
General blood work?
Which tests specifically? There’s a number that indicate diabetes and cholesterol issues.[/quote]
You know, all the blood work that dentists usually run on their patients.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Starting weight 150lbs with normal bodyfat % of 15.
80 pound increase with 5 % increase in bodyfat.
Result: 230 pounds at 20% bf
You don’t think adding 24 pounds of fat is going to increase their chances of CVD?[/quote]
No.
Just like in a clinic, the person who would think this does not understand human variability or all of the factors involved with someone getting a CVD.
Aside from the large genetic component, ignoring LIFESTYLE AND EXERCISE to only focus on body fat makes no sense as there is no one to one correlation.
That person could easily be MORE HEALTHY at 230lbs.
Steely just told you similar with his own results.
That is the difference between real science and “bro science”.[/quote]
I am confused as to what a clinic has to do with anything?
And I hate to tell you but adding and extra 5% increase in fat there is almost no shot of that person being healthier because that increase means one thing since he is obviously exercising, his diet is not correct for the amount of work that he is doing. He may not be a ticking time bomb but he is unhealthier than he would be if he lost that 12 extra lbs of fat he has accumulated.[/quote]
None of this is correct. I am not going to argue further with you, however, because you seem to really think you know the full complexity of our own biology.
I will take your statements point by point.
-I am confused as to what a clinic has to do with anything?
I mentioned a clinic to imply real world experience in diagnosing patients with diseases.
-I hate to tell you but adding and extra 5% increase in fat there is almost no shot of that person being healthier because that increase means one thing since he is obviously exercising, his diet is not correct for the amount of work that he is doing.
None of this is true. Yes, a person with a 5% increase in body fat can be healthier than they were when leaner. That is because your health is not hanging in the balance of your fat percentage alone.
It also does not mean someone’s diet was incorrect. Bauber has shown this. You really think his “diet was incorrect” when he gained more body fat? Wasn’t he working on gaining muscle? So wasn’t his diet CORRECT to get the results he was after?
Do you understand that your BODY FAT is not the main priority of all lifters at all times when they are gaining?
Do you understand that a 5% increase in body fat over ten years as someone gains 80lbs is exceptional in terms of muscle building progress and not “unhealthy” in and of itself?
-He may not be a ticking time bomb but he is unhealthier than he would be if he lost that 12 extra lbs of fat he has accumulated
Once again, there is no one to one correlation between body fat and your health. It is based on a culmination of factors. You can NOT make the statement that someone will be “healthier” if they lose more fat in all cases. That has no basis in science at all. Making statements like this is BRO SCIENCE…because it isn’t backed in real science. It is what guys like you jump to in conclusions based on what you already want to believe with limited education in the subject you are reviewing. Your body is way more complex than this.
If it were not, the human race would have been extinguished before we learned to make buildings out of stone.
If gaining fat alone was that much of a risk, most of the human population in America would have died off before finishing their second round of Breyer’s icecream.[/quote]
First off you do not have any real world experience diagnosing CVD either.
I also never said that body fat alone was a to blame however an increase in body fat is an indicator of the presence of other risk factors as well as being one itself. This is a basic “no med degree required” accepted principal. And yes, Bauber’s diet is incorrect if he was trying to minimize his risk of heart disease. I think even he would admit that he is not living the ideal lifestyle, if his goal was to not have a heart attack. I am unsure where your thought process was on that one, there are people that do things that are unhealthy for them all the time in an effort to achieve a desired physical goal. Which is fine, but those people I don’t believe are delusional enough to trick themselves into believing that they are in fact healthier.
Also how is a 5% increase in body fat muscle building progress? And do you understand that by increasing your bodyfat by 5% you are putting yourself at a greater risk of CVD by either improper diet or lack of exercise for CVD prevention? And to your earlier post, yes a 5% increase in fat does force your heart to work harder, maybe not significantly, but harder none-the-less. Do you understand that the term “healthier” in this discussion has strictly referred to lower risk of CVD?
I really wouldn’t criticize my knowledge on the subject, when there is research to back me up, albeit research that you refute. But when it comes to your BRO SCIENCE ideology that you have clung to during this discussion, there is nothing to support your theory that gaining fat can be good for your chances of not contracting heart disease.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]
NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.
Look, I don’t have the time today to fuss with 10 different people all focusing on something different to bitch about.
I have answered you. No doctor would look at a patient and indicate health risk JUST BECAUSE THEY GAINED A LITTLE BODY FAT ALONE excluding the activity and lifestyle and genetic history of the patient. That makes no sense.[/quote]
Wow.
I wasn’t bitching, I was genuinely curious as to your opinion on a subject I thought you might have interesting insights on. I thought I had made it pretty clear in my post that I knew that Bauber’s muscle mass made a difference, and wanted to know what you thought about that, compared to someone sedentary. I also deliberately used examples where people had gained more than “a little bodyfat alone” because I didn’t want the discussion to focus on small increases, because I actually agree with the points you have made about that previously.
Instead I get sworn at and accused of bitching.
I can see why everyone hates you.
I HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY JOINED THE POSSE! HAI GUYS!
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]
NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.
Look, I don’t have the time today to fuss with 10 different people all focusing on something different to bitch about.
I have answered you. No doctor would look at a patient and indicate health risk JUST BECAUSE THEY GAINED A LITTLE BODY FAT ALONE excluding the activity and lifestyle and genetic history of the patient. That makes no sense.[/quote]
Wow.
I wasn’t bitching, I was genuinely curious as to your opinion on a subject I thought you might have interesting insights on. I thought I had made it pretty clear in my post that I knew that Bauber’s muscle mass made a difference, and wanted to know what you thought about that, compared to someone sedentary. I also deliberately used examples where people had gained more than “a little bodyfat alone” because I didn’t want the discussion to focus on small increases, because I actually agree with the points you have made about that previously.
Instead I get sworn at and accused of bitching.
I can see why everyone hates you.
I HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY JOINED THE POSSE! HAI GUYS![/quote]
RDS, don’t you know that someone can’t possibly be unhealthy because you can see some muscles?
You really aren’t cut out for this.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]
NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.
Look, I don’t have the time today to fuss with 10 different people all focusing on something different to bitch about.
I have answered you. No doctor would look at a patient and indicate health risk JUST BECAUSE THEY GAINED A LITTLE BODY FAT ALONE excluding the activity and lifestyle and genetic history of the patient. That makes no sense.[/quote]
Wow.
I wasn’t bitching, I was genuinely curious as to your opinion on a subject I thought you might have interesting insights on. I thought I had made it pretty clear in my post that I knew that Bauber’s muscle mass made a difference, and wanted to know what you thought about that, compared to someone sedentary. I also deliberately used examples where people had gained more than “a little bodyfat alone” because I didn’t want the discussion to focus on small increases, because I actually agree with the points you have made about that previously.
Instead I get sworn at and accused of bitching.
I can see why everyone hates you.
I HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY JOINED THE POSSE! HAI GUYS![/quote]
RDS, don’t you know that someone can’t possibly be unhealthy because you can see some muscles?
You really aren’t cut out for this.[/quote]
oh god maybe you’re right. All this wasted time in the gym. All those hours I’ll never get back…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]
NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.
[/quote]
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. You are aware that diet is a huge factor in CVD risk correct? So lets put out thinking caps on here for a second, BIG FUCKING MUSCLES and gaining fat… hmmmm… That means that his diet is shitty for protecting himself from CVD. I suppose you think Kai Greene is super safe from having a heart attack also?
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I see what you’re saying, but could the increase in fat, and lets be honest his bodyfat was pretty high, not be indicative of an “unhealthy” lifestyle which is increasing the negative health markers? [/quote]
NO…BECAUSE I CAN SEE THOSE BIG FUCKING MUSCLES THAT INDICATE HE HAS A LIFE SPENT IN THE GYM AND ISN’T SEDENTARY.
Look, I don’t have the time today to fuss with 10 different people all focusing on something different to bitch about.
I have answered you. No doctor would look at a patient and indicate health risk JUST BECAUSE THEY GAINED A LITTLE BODY FAT ALONE excluding the activity and lifestyle and genetic history of the patient. That makes no sense.[/quote]
Wow.
I wasn’t bitching, I was genuinely curious as to your opinion on a subject I thought you might have interesting insights on. I thought I had made it pretty clear in my post that I knew that Bauber’s muscle mass made a difference, and wanted to know what you thought about that, compared to someone sedentary. I also deliberately used examples where people had gained more than “a little bodyfat alone” because I didn’t want the discussion to focus on small increases, because I actually agree with the points you have made about that previously.
Instead I get sworn at and accused of bitching.
I can see why everyone hates you.
I HAVE NOW OFFICIALLY JOINED THE POSSE! HAI GUYS![/quote]
RDS, don’t you know that someone can’t possibly be unhealthy because you can see some muscles?
You really aren’t cut out for this.[/quote]
oh god maybe you’re right. All this wasted time in the gym. All those hours I’ll never get back…[/quote]
Drown your sorrows in a tub of ice cream and call it bulking.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
First off you do not have any real world experience diagnosing CVD either. [/quote]
This is incorrect. I am often one of the first to notice symptoms as patients come in for other treatment. They then get referred to their general phys. if those symptoms persist and can interfere with treatment. The final diagnosis could be left to a cardiologist. That would happen often even if they went to their gen phys first.
[quote]
I also never said that body fat alone was a to blame however an increase in body fat is an indicator of the presence of other risk factors as well as being one itself. This is a basic “no med degree required” accepted principal. [/quote]
This is incorrect. Body fat alone is never an indicator. THE AMOUNT OF BODY FAT is the issue…since no human can live without body fat. This is further complicated by other risk factors.
[quote]
And yes, Bauber’s diet is incorrect if he was trying to minimize his risk of heart disease.[/quote]
If that were his main focus, hitting 300lbs would not be the priority.
Heads up…that isn’t the focus of even one Mr. Olympia contestant either…no matter how lean they are.
His body fat level alone was not a risk for heart disease as he was not obese.
By noticing the 80 POUNDS I mentioned with it which implies a shit load of muscle was built.
This is incorrect. A person at 9% is not at more risk because they are 14%.
This is incorrect…as someone can gain fat and lose weight.
[quote] Do you understand that the term “healthier” in this discussion has strictly referred to lower risk of CVD?
I really wouldn’t criticize my knowledge on the subject, when there is research to back me up, albeit research that you refute. But when it comes to your BRO SCIENCE ideology that you have clung to during this discussion, there is nothing to support your theory that gaining fat can be good for your chances of not contracting heart disease.[/quote]
What research backs up a 5% increase in fat alone causes a significant increase in the risk for a CVD?