Enough Muscle Mass to Lose Weight?

Training Bodybuilding
81

On rereading tribunaldude’s post, I notice that I missed a couple of points:

  1. Effect of “power belly” on aiding certain lifts, I suppose most particularly the squat.

It is true that more can be squatted generally with the power belly, at least among practiced powerlifters, but if this leads to better leg development than with bodybuilders who don’t go for the power belly certainly seems unproven to be so.

However, that said, if someone comparing in their own case two both-reasonable bodyfat percentages sees a quite important difference in strength according to waist size, yes I’d suggest spending a good amount of time at the larger but still reasonable-bodyfat value.

But I think if anyone uses that to justify being genuinely fat, they are deceiving themselves I think. Unless their purpose is not bodybuilding but SHW powerlifting, or sumo wrestling, or that sort of thing.

I can imagine some saying, But didn’t Dorian bulk up? He was 300 lb off season as Mr Olympia!

Well I can assure you he wasn’t 30% bf at that. (If he were then his LBM would have been only 210 lb which obviously is not so.) He wasn’t 20% bf, either.

Some pro bb’ers do perhaps according to how one may use words look sloppy off-season, but in almost all cases I think the bf percentage is still not really high. So they do not make a case for the “ya gotta get porky” theory either.

  1. Improved leverage.

I don’t think this is important to bodybuilding. Of course it is to achieving bigger lifts in powerlifting, as the weight itself is what is aimed for. However, in bb’ing if the force generated by the muscle is the same but leverage, whether outside or inside the body, causes more weight to be moved, well it is what is happening inside the body that is important, not the weight per se.

E.g., if you could attach weights to your elbows, you could use more weight for flyes than you can use when holding the DB’s in your hand, for the same force on the pecs, due to better leverage. But that does not mean it would be a better chest-building exercise.

Lastly, getting back to the fascia and the theory that building up intramuscular fat could be helpful because that could stretch the fascia, thus enabling growth after the fat is lost: Why imagine that the fat cells can stretch the fascia, that the fascia provide no restraint on fat growth, but muscle cells just can’t overcome the fascia? Has any advocate of this theory had an explanation that makes any sense in covering that?

Or how about all those novice trainers that make fast gains? What about their fascia? Shouldn’t they at least sometimes have some obvious sign of tight fascia due to the muscle pushing so hard against it?

Anyway, just what is the evidence for the theory. Really that is the relevant point, rather than needing a proof (there is none, I expect) that it is not so.

82

Bill Roberts and tribunaldude for the absolute win. Awesome posts guys, I whole heartedly agree with both your points.

83

there is some really good info in this thread. Bill Roberts and tribunaldude, thanks for posting.

84

Original Poster ~

You look like garbage, I know models that could kick your ass.

Now that the honesty is over ~ please listen to Roberts and Tribunal.

Throw on a ton of muscle + eat healthy + toss in daily cardio ~ even tossing 15 minutes of running around in circles in a 4x4 space would benefit but eat healthy ~ pour on protein ~ eat til you can’t eat and go inhale more. If solid foods get tiring - get some grow whey! :wink:

You will find that to even reasonably come close to your goal - you must, put on more then 15lbs of muscle. Get started now.

85

Agree completely with all/most of the points you made. I certainly doubt anyone recommends going up to 30% as a goal in and out of itself, however I have known bodybuilder who went up to 18-20% body fat in their initial stages of training and were able to hold their size gains in not-very-lean-but-reasonable state when dieting down. Like you said, everyone is different. someone may find it difficult to get lean without sacrificing significant size without AAS and some may have poor skin elasticity, in which case keeping body fat gains even more limited than the average bodybuilder would be the order of the day.

As far as greater leverage due to higher bodyweight (and even powerbelly), I’m not referring to the leverage itself raising the weight. An example of the latter would be some bottom heavy deadlifters who have the ability to LEVER their bodyweight about their feet (a fulcrum) and let themselves fall back letting their bodyweight take pounds off the barbell (in a sense) without much leg drive. As expected, these DLers gain strength (DL poundage) the fastest with bodyweight gains but surprisingly show relatively lesser upper body development than the ones with poorer technique and who almost stiff leg the weight off the floor.

However, I;m referring to greater bodyweight (muscle and fat) ALLOWING greater poundages to be used in various movements becaue of greater stability. A heavier person (powerbelly or not) would be able to use more weight (with good form) even in upepr body movements like tricep pushdowns and have better form (straighter back, less swing) for heavier weight in the lat pulldown -

While training on an unstable surface has its uses, lets face it. Why don;t bbers use DB presses on the bosu ball as a main movement? cos the instability doen;t allow enough weight to be used to create enough of a stimulus for the prime movers - pectorals or shoulders or triceps. So greater bodyweight and greater leverage ALLOWING more weight to be moved by the prime movers becaue of greater stability. USing the standing chest pre with a cable crossover is not useful mainly because only a VERY heavy individual will be able to stabilize himelf sufficiently to use enough weight on the cable stack.

While the powerbelly allows more weight to be used in the squat (not referring to a bell so big you can use it to bounce out of the hole obviously), its still the posterior chain and quads that have to move the weight - the thicker waist only allows you to maintain tighter form and be more stable o your prime mover can move more weight. you will agree that a lifting belt allows you to get more leg development out of the squat IF the presence of lifting belt allows greater poundages to be moved simply because it stabilizes the lower back.

So I was arguing for having greater bodyweight (muscle and fat to some extent) and even the powerbelly (within limits) to ALLOW for more weight to be moved by the prime movers (not by the belly itself). I don;t see how this could not elicit more hypertrophy (for the prime movers themelves)

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
On rereading tribunaldude’s post, I notice that I missed a couple of points:

  1. Effect of “power belly” on aiding certain lifts, I suppose most particularly the squat.

It is true that more can be squatted generally with the power belly, at least among practiced powerlifters, but if this leads to better leg development than with bodybuilders who don’t go for the power belly certainly seems unproven to be so.

However, that said, if someone comparing in their own case two both-reasonable bodyfat percentages sees a quite important difference in strength according to waist size, yes I’d suggest spending a good amount of time at the larger but still reasonable-bodyfat value.

But I think if anyone uses that to justify being genuinely fat, they are deceiving themselves I think. Unless their purpose is not bodybuilding but SHW powerlifting, or sumo wrestling, or that sort of thing.

I can imagine some saying, But didn’t Dorian bulk up? He was 300 lb off season as Mr Olympia!

Well I can assure you he wasn’t 30% bf at that. (If he were then his LBM would have been only 210 lb which obviously is not so.) He wasn’t 20% bf, either.

Some pro bb’ers do perhaps according to how one may use words look sloppy off-season, but in almost all cases I think the bf percentage is still not really high. So they do not make a case for the “ya gotta get porky” theory either.

  1. Improved leverage.

I don’t think this is important to bodybuilding. Of course it is to achieving bigger lifts in powerlifting, as the weight itself is what is aimed for. However, in bb’ing if the force generated by the muscle is the same but leverage, whether outside or inside the body, causes more weight to be moved, well it is what is happening inside the body that is important, not the weight per se.

E.g., if you could attach weights to your elbows, you could use more weight for flyes than you can use when holding the DB’s in your hand, for the same force on the pecs, due to better leverage. But that does not mean it would be a better chest-building exercise.

Lastly, getting back to the fascia and the theory that building up intramuscular fat could be helpful because that could stretch the fascia, thus enabling growth after the fat is lost: Why imagine that the fat cells can stretch the fascia, that the fascia provide no restraint on fat growth, but muscle cells just can’t overcome the fascia? Has any advocate of this theory had an explanation that makes any sense in covering that?

Or how about all those novice trainers that make fast gains? What about their fascia? Shouldn’t they at least sometimes have some obvious sign of tight fascia due to the muscle pushing so hard against it?

Anyway, just what is the evidence for the theory. Really that is the relevant point, rather than needing a proof (there is none, I expect) that it is not so.[/quote]

86

PS: And for the previous discussion (intramuscular fat) about the intramuscular fat = greater muscle leverage = greater hypertrophy, if that has not been proven, then would you also say that the strength gains from loading creatine (nore water inside muscles so more leverage) allowing greater weights to be used (due to better leverage) have NO role in stimulating more hypertrophy?

87

There are other possible mechanisms. I don’t know how one would isolate which specific cause is the driving factor or what relative proportion each might play.

On bosu balls allowing less weight and not being as good for hypertrophy: I don’t think this is a leverage matter.

On saying you cannot see how it could not be an advantage to have a power lifter: Still a great number of incredible legs have been built without power bellies having been required in their building. Being unable to see how something might not aid in growth doesn’t really show that it aids.

For example, does a power belly really help in squatting in the rep ranges most commonly used for hypertrophy? I really dont’ know, as I don’t have one. Of course it helps in very-high-percentage-of-1RM work, but that’s not how huge thighs are built.

88

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I’ve never seen a proof of the fascia-as-limits-to-growth theory. The thing most closely, though not remotely closely, approaching evidence would seem to be that stretching can aid muscle growth. But it is an assumption that the reason for the aid is the fascia being stretched, as opposed to the muscle fibers.

On the theory that fascia limit growth: How then do your muscles pump? If the fascia are mechanically stopping the muscles from gaining any size at all, even a small fraction of an inch per day – and only a tiny fraction of an inch per day would really add up – how then can they pump at all?

And not that the following proves anything, but for example tree roots breaking through concrete and this sort of thing suggests to me that cells can overcome more mechanical pressure against growth than the fascia-limit-growth theorists would have us believe.

And anyway I don’t think the fascia actually exert substantial compressive force on muscle at rest and am aware of no evidence that they do.[/quote]

LOL. You’ve never seen proof? Science still has only theory as to how all muscle growth occurs. It can’t even explain why some steroids seemed to cause growth in leg muscle mass even when NO exercise had occurred.

Yes, I do believe in fascia stretching aiding in muscle growth and that has been my theory for why many of the largest lifters also used to carry more body fat at some point in their lifting career. It is definitely why I think I was able to push far past my starting point as a beginner. The increase of water, glycogen, and yes, even fat could lead to more muscle growth. That is what I refer to as “bulking up”.

To claim you need proof of this must mean you have proof of all other theories surrounding the growth of all muscle tissue. It is a theory because all I have is personal observation and my own personal progress to go from.

I know one thing, I seriously doubt listening to the “must stay under 12%” brigade would have helped me gain as much as I have over the last 13 years or so.

One more thing, who has EVER recommended that someone needs to be 30% body fat to see the most progress? Anyone? EVER?

89

So why do you say it is stretching of the fascia that leads to the benefit, instead of say muscle fiber stretching leading to the benefit?

My job is not to prove every given assertion wrong. Rather, it is the job of those making assertions to provide at least SOME reason why their theory is, among other things, better than obvious alternates.

So do you have any evidence (there ought to be SOME reason for claims) that is the fascia, not other reasons, that limit growth? If so for example then how do we explain how individuals commonly may suddenly add 1/4" or whatever of growth without having done any fascial stretching? How do we explain how their muscles pump up? What, there’s room for that, but not for cold growth?

On your last sentence: I appreciate my previous post was long and many may have preferred to not read the whole thing. Therefore you may not have and that is fine. But within it, I said as an example that the people I am talking about are MISINTERPRETING what people like you say.

Not that you or anyone else with sense has ever advocated going to 30%.

However there are indeed a lot of fat fucks in the gym who already are there and are exactly of the mindset I was talking about, or are say 25% and ready to pack on much more fat and indeed hit 30% based on their misintepretations and wrong thinking.

I’m not objecting with you in fact mean or in fact have said: I am saying that points that when understood correctly have merit, become completely fucked up when misintrepreted as they commonly are.

For example, this fellow need not be advised that he has to get fatter yet.

90

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
.

  1. Improved leverage.

I don’t think this is important to bodybuilding. Of course it is to achieving bigger lifts in powerlifting, as the weight itself is what is aimed for. However, in bb’ing if the force generated by the muscle is the same but leverage, whether outside or inside the body, causes more weight to be moved, well it is what is happening inside the body that is important, not the weight per se.
[/quote]

Wow. This may be true if your goal is simply to hit a solid 180lbs in good condition, but for anyone expecting arms over 18" they will have to move some serious weight to gain that type of muscle mass. Therefore, the weight used IS of primary concern especially to the beginner and intermediate bodybuilder with sites on taking up as much space as possible.

I don’t know about you, but I lift quite a bit…enough to get an audience some days depending on what I’m doing. Maybe you need to define the GOALS to which you are discussing because really big dense muscles aren’t built with light weights.

91

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So why do you say it is stretching of the fascia that leads to the benefit, instead of say muscle fiber stretching leading to the benefit?[/quote]

Because I never went the route of stretching my muscle tissue. EVER. I did however observe most of the really big guys on the football team carrying the most muscle also seemed to be the same carrying a little more body fat previously.

[quote]

My job is not to prove every given assertion wrong. Rather, it is the job of those making assertions to provide at least SOME reason why their theory is, among other things, better than obvious alternates.[/quote]

That’s all well and good, but you are now speaking to someone with a decent education in biology who has also basically doubled his body weight since he began. I think that gives me some insight into the human condition.

[quote]

On your last sentence: I appreciate my previous post was long and many may have preferred to not read the whole thing. Therefore you may not have and that is fine. But within it, I said as an example that the people I am talking about are MISINTERPRETING what people like you say.[/quote]

I understand that, but these authors here don’t seem to care much (except for CT) when some newbie misinterprets their writings completely. In fact, they seem to simply ignore it. Why do I get special treatment?

[quote]

Not that you or anyone else with sense has ever advocated going to 30%.

However there are indeed a lot of fat fucks in the gym who already are there and are exactly of the mindset I was talking about, or are say 25% and ready to pack on much more fat and indeed hit 30% based on their misintepretations and wrong thinking.

I’m not objecting with you in fact mean or in fact have said: I am saying that points that when understood correctly have merit, become completely fucked up when misintrepreted as they commonly are.

For example, this fellow need not be advised that he has to get fatter yet.[/quote]

I see no need for anyone to be much over 20% at any point in time. I do, however, think how lean you are while gaining needs to be taken on an individual basis as not everyone gains the most muscle in the least time by being under 12% body fat, especially as a beginner.

That concept seems to be missing on this site for some reason.

92

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
.

  1. Improved leverage.

I don’t think this is important to bodybuilding. Of course it is to achieving bigger lifts in powerlifting, as the weight itself is what is aimed for. However, in bb’ing if the force generated by the muscle is the same but leverage, whether outside or inside the body, causes more weight to be moved, well it is what is happening inside the body that is important, not the weight per se.

Wow. This may be true if your goal is simply to hit a solid 180lbs in good condition, but for anyone expecting arms over 18" they will have to move some serious weight to gain that type of muscle mass. Therefore, the weight used IS of primary concern especially to the beginner and intermediate bodybuilder with sites on taking up as much space as possible.

I don’t know about you, but I lift quite a bit…enough to get an audience some days depending on what I’m doing. Maybe you need to define the GOALS to which you are discussing because really big dense muscles aren’t built with light weights.[/quote]

Above, in this case you don’t seem to be reading what I said according to what it actually says.

I am discussing the specific point of LEVERAGE, not of differing weights with same leverage.

Go use, for example, a different plate-loaded machine (not that I am saying machines are better, but as an example) that uses different leverage and thus allows more plates.

Do you get more growth?

Hold your body at an angle that de-loads the lift. You can use more weight. Do you get more growth? While that is not leverage per se, it is the same principle.

It’s not so simple as “more weight regardless of different mechanical factors means more growth.”

If one is arguing that a mechanical factor allows more weight – which was being argued – it does not follow of any necessity that there is more growth from that.

Hell, just wear a multiply bench shirt and that will jack chest development way up, since more weight is being used…

93

I was wondering when you were going to chime in. Should have just put some cheesesteak before the thread title as bait.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
[/quote]

94

Come on, Bill. That go against what Ive been suggesting. A multiply shirt will take forcu away from the prime movers…pecs.

HOWEVER, using a multiply for benching MAY be a good idea as far as using the bench for tricep development is concerned.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Hell, just wear a multiply bench shirt and that will jack chest development way up, since more weight is being used…[/quote]

95

The movement in the different machine will not be identical to the movement in the previous machine.

I was talking about better stability in the SAME movement pattern without deloading the prime movers.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Go use, for example, a different plate-loaded machine (not that I am saying machines are better, but as an example) that uses different leverage and thus allows more plates.
[/quote]

96

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You don’t seem to be reading what I say according to what it actually says.

I am discussing the specific point of LEVERAGE, not of differing weights with same leverage.

Go use, for example, a different plate-loaded machine (not that I am saying machines are better, but as an example) that uses different leverage and thus allows more plates.

Do you get more growth?[/quote]

Faulty analogy. In your scenario, I am actually lifting LESS weight since more is counter-weighted depending on the machine used and the angle. In the scenario of a bigger lifter lifting more, that person is still doing ALL of the work on the SAME EXERCISE.

97

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So why do you say it is stretching of the fascia that leads to the benefit, instead of say muscle fiber stretching leading to the benefit?

Because I never went the route of stretching my muscle tissue. EVER. I did however observe most of the really big guys on the football team carrying the most muscle also seemed to be the same carrying a little more body fat previously.[/quote]

Then why do you say stretching of any kind had anything to do with it? What is the evidence that stretching of any kind improved your growth? Let alone of the fascia.

If you are going to say “Because I was gaining limb circumference above and beyond the muscle gain, and did so better than when not gaining any fat” how do you know this was not from more calories, higher insulin levels and so forth, as opposed to “fascial stretching”?

There ought to be some reason for claiming things, that makes sense.

Unless psychic, there still ought to be a reason that can be explained for claiming, for example, fascial stretching as being necessary or helpful for growth. Citing one’s size really doesn’t accomplish that unless there are things along the way that really do point to fascial stretching as having been the cause. You have not given that.

[quote]On your last sentence: I appreciate my previous post was long and many may have preferred to not read the whole thing. Therefore you may not have and that is fine. But within it, I said as an example that the people I am talking about are MISINTERPRETING what people like you say.

I understand that, but these authors here don’t seem to care much (except for CT) when some newbie misinterprets their writings completely. In fact, they seem to simply ignore it. Why do I get special treatment?[/quote]

I picked you because people here admire you, you have an outstanding physique, and I expect that many of them of the misinterpreted position I was describing, if readers here, are falsely using you as an example of justifying their fatness. Whereas in fact if they used you as an example CORRECTLY they would be doing well.

[quote]I see no need for anyone to be much over 20% at any point in time. I do, however, think how lean you are while gaining needs to be taken on an individual basis as not everyone gains the most muscle in the least time by being under 12% body fat, especially as a beginner.

That concept seems to be missing on this site for some reason.
[/quote]

I agree with you on each of these last points.

98

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

Then why do you say stretching of any kind had anything to do with it? What is the evidence that stretching of any kind improved your growth? Let alone of the fascia.[/quote]

I am speaking of what goes on inside the sarcoplasmic sheath. I am speaking of increasing growth of the entire muscle based on all mass gained inside of that sheath. You will find almost down to every single one (with regards to extremely serious lifters who look like it) that they claim they may have more fat when they first hit a certain body weight, but after losing some body fat and hitting that mark again, they are much leaner. These are also the most likely to hit larger body weights well above 200lbs assuming the genetic base and consistency is there.

I’m sorry, did you really think I hadn’t thought this out?

99

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
You don’t seem to be reading what I say according to what it actually says.

I am discussing the specific point of LEVERAGE, not of differing weights with same leverage.

Go use, for example, a different plate-loaded machine (not that I am saying machines are better, but as an example) that uses different leverage and thus allows more plates.

Do you get more growth?

Faulty analogy. In your scenario, I am actually lifting LESS weight since more is counter-weighted depending on the machine used and the angle. In the scenario of a bigger lifter lifting more, that person is still doing ALL of the work on the SAME EXERCISE.

[/quote]

No, it isn’t. One given plate-loaded machine absolutely could be designed to give leverage allowing more plates to be used for same force at the handle. You are responding to something different than what I wrote.

As to whether there is any relevance, the reason there is the question is not exact same conditions but different weight, but a claim that if internal mechanical conditions are changed by fat, not by increased developed muscle tension, yielding a leverage difference – a mechanical sort of change, if one may refer to things in the body that way, in the physics sense – that increase achieved from this mechanical effect must improve growth.

My illustration is that mechanical change, such as leverage, is the cause of differing weight lifted, then one cannot assume more growth must necessarily occur.

Mechanical factors making a lift easier don’t necessarily mean growing better.

100

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
You don’t seem to be reading what I say according to what it actually says.

I am discussing the specific point of LEVERAGE, not of differing weights with same leverage.

Go use, for example, a different plate-loaded machine (not that I am saying machines are better, but as an example) that uses different leverage and thus allows more plates.

Do you get more growth?

Faulty analogy. In your scenario, I am actually lifting LESS weight since more is counter-weighted depending on the machine used and the angle. In the scenario of a bigger lifter lifting more, that person is still doing ALL of the work on the SAME EXERCISE.

No, it isn’t. One given plate-loaded machine absolutely could be designed to give leverage allowing more plates to be used for same force at the handle. You are responding to something different than what I wrote.[/quote]

I responded to that very concept. If the EXERCISE IS CHANGED then that is NOT the same as a big lifter lifting more because of more leverage inside of his own body while using the same movement he always used.

One assumes this every single day in gyms across the country the moment they ask for a spotter to help them with negatives even though they can’t actually lift the weight themselves through the positive portion of the movement.

That is, unless you are about to claim that this does not aid in strength increases since they had help…