'Full House' ???

Training
221

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
have any “full house-ers” hit the point where theyre tired of carrying extra fat and want to finally cut down and see single digit bodyfat? ive gone through that point several times in the past couple months and as soon as i lose strength in the gym or look small in my clothes, i go back to eating excessive calories because i think im gonna shrivel down.

#mindfuck[/quote]

Just because your strength goes down because of fat loss, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost muscle mass. Many think this, but it’s not the case. In some lifts, fat mass lends to bigger numbers put up, hence the terms “fat strength” and “lean strength”. Feeling flat" doesn’t mean you’ve lost muscle mass either. Going down a shirt size, say from XXL to XL or XL to L doesn’t mean you’ve lost muscle mass either.

222

Just curious about what happens to “full house” guys when they get older. Are they prone to having a lot more fat or what? I dont know but my guess is it would be very hard to take that look into middle age without fat levels going up

223

[quote]steven alex wrote:
Just curious about what happens to “full house” guys when they get older. Are they prone to having a lot more fat or what? I dont know but my guess is it would be very hard to take that look into middle age without fat levels going up[/quote]

Correct, hence why so many permabulkers find it very difficult to lose the weight when they get into their late 30’s and beyond. Areas which become harder to “tighten up” are the lower abs, lower back, “love handle” area, lower-pec-arm-pit area. Also as Chris Shugart has pointed out, for some stubborn fatty areas to come off after being their so long it takes damn near starvation.

I’ve also noticed many are prone to yo-yo’ing and having uncontrollable food cravings and tendency for over eating.

224

“Trust me, people are impressed by someone who is my size at my level of leanness whether I want to get leaner later or not”

Your words carry weight

225

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
have any “full house-ers” hit the point where theyre tired of carrying extra fat and want to finally cut down and see single digit bodyfat? ive gone through that point several times in the past couple months and as soon as i lose strength in the gym or look small in my clothes, i go back to eating excessive calories because i think im gonna shrivel down.

#mindfuck[/quote]

Just because your strength goes down because of fat loss, it doesn’t mean you’ve lost muscle mass. Many think this, but it’s not the case. In some lifts, fat mass lends to bigger numbers put up, hence the terms “fat strength” and “lean strength”. Feeling flat" doesn’t mean you’ve lost muscle mass either. Going down a shirt size, say from XXL to XL or XL to L doesn’t mean you’ve lost muscle mass either. [/quote]

lol i know im probably not losing muscle mass, and a decrease in strength and shittier pump is part of the process… its just a complete mindfuck from feeling big, full and pumped for so many months… cough years :slight_smile:

226

i DO wish i did not listen to certain posters many months ago and gotten my weight up to as high as it is. i dont think i progressed any faster the past few months muscle wise than i wouldve if i took it slower and stayed leaner.

for fucks sake i hope noobies coming to this site read this and take the advice of guys like brickhead, zraw, and mighty stu.

227

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The point again, like the other poster made, is that long term it allows more progress.

[/quote]

How can you say that..What are you basing yourself off to say this?

How do you even KNOW this?
[/quote]

@SteelyD.. how is this not impplying what Brick said.. lol
[/quote]

zraw - I don’t really glean any joy or satisfaction arguing semantics.

I didn’t bother searching for the post that you quoted, but the quote itself does not imply “necessary” – as in “adequate calories and protein consumption are necessary for growth”

All I can interpret, given the full catalog of posts PX has made in the past is that by saying “… long term it allows more progress” means that someone who is making strength and/or size gains might notice that they’re smoothing out. Instead of stopping their progress they accept it and keep going. At some future point with more relevant gains, they notice they’ve put on a little more fat, but instead of stopping to diet it off, they accept it as within comfort zone and keep progressing.

In that amount of time, let’s call it one year, that person would have made more noticable strength and size gains than someone who keeps stopping to diet just to remain at some fat% or shirt size or ab visibility. In that respect, the style of continued progression (or, non-dieting) has ‘allowed’ that person to make more progress (strength/size) than the constant dieter. Only that person can determine if the ‘progress’ was quality or not for their goals.

That’s all I ever read into PX’s posts and all that I interpreted as ‘implied’.

zraw - did you ever get my PMs I sent somewhat recently (weeks)?

228

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]steven alex wrote:
Just curious about what happens to “full house” guys when they get older. Are they prone to having a lot more fat or what? I dont know but my guess is it would be very hard to take that look into middle age without fat levels going up[/quote]

Correct, hence why so many permabulkers find it very difficult to lose the weight when they get into their late 30’s and beyond. Areas which become harder to “tighten up” are the lower abs, lower back, “love handle” area, lower-pec-arm-pit area. Also as Chris Shugart has pointed out, for some stubborn fatty areas to come off after being their so long it takes damn near starvation.

I’ve also noticed many are prone to yo-yo’ing and having uncontrollable food cravings and tendency for over eating. [/quote]

Meh. I started in my mid/late 30’s. I’m 41. 40 is the new 20 :wink:

229

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

I don’t know if this is “full house” or not, and I freely admit I could stand to drop 25 lbs. [/quote]

Steely, I gotta ask…you could stand to drop 25 pounds to what? Because you could drop 25 pounds and still be in full house mode, IMO.

Agreed, it’s one thing to make a statement that the full house look is not one’s particular cup of tea, but to equate it to just being a fat guy is something altogether ridiculous.

You’ve probably made just as much progress as anyone on these boards over the years, IMO. Also, IMO, and I know you’re not quite where you want to be yet, but it might be time to shed down a bit and see what you’ve accomplished. There is nothing to suggest that you won’t be able to add muscle after dropping fat and do it while remaining a bit leaner.

Not sure what your end goals are, but a lot of big dudes bulk up to gain that initial size (which you’ve done admirably) and then maintain a leaner physique while trying to add further progress at an advanced level.

230

[quote]hastalles wrote:
A crazy shredded person is one step away from starving, why the hell would you want to look like that? I want to look like Steely.
[/quote]

That may be the worst wish you ever made!! (thank you).

231

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

I don’t know if this is “full house” or not, and I freely admit I could stand to drop 25 lbs. [/quote]

Steely, I gotta ask…you could stand to drop 25 pounds to what? Because you could drop 25 pounds and still be in full house mode, IMO.
[/quote]

Drop 25 lbs of fat-- or to get to 240 (Is that what you’re asking?).

Correct about still being full-house (if I am even ‘full house’). 240 would get me more vascularity, better outline of abs, but certainly not ripped. I have no illusions that I might be much more than 200 lbs, if even that, in BB contest condition. Probably less, but it’s not my goal.

The only, and I mean only reason I might endeavor to drop to sub-220 is to make that weight class for a bench comp. I would certainly take the physique benefit that went with it. I’m still chasing max lift numbers at the moment.

My posts might not make it clear, but I do try to balance stregnth gains with physique, probably to the detriment of the lifts.

No one is endorsing gaining fat for the sake of gaining fat.

232

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

“There have only been studies on middle-aged obese women.”

Study presented on the general population.

Ignore the strong correlation between BMI and bodyfat among the general populace and nitpick.

Use n=1 arguments, call it science, profit?
[/quote]

This response and any like it happen to be pretty childish.

Once again, a population study using BMI is not relevant to a discussion about BODY FAT PERCENTAGES IN SERIOUS WEIGHT LIFTERS in direct correlation to INSULIN RESISTANCE.

This has been explained in detail. Either stick to the topic or leave the discussion. The same group of you simply logging in to fuss with me is getting stupid.

Stick to the points made which explain why this study doesn’t represent that gaining a LITTLE BODY FAT changes INSULIN RESISTANCE SIGNIFICANTLY
[/quote]

You’re right, man. The mature thing to do would have been to post a “forum police” meme when someone called me on my bullshit, right?

You want a serious post? You use n=1 and tout yourself as an example more than anyone on this site to shout down opinions contrary to your own. You did it in the latest LBM thread and you’re well aware that you did. If you are so concerned about bad science, then never use n=1 again…I dare you to try.

“You deal with studies on a daily basis.” Well what the hell does that even mean? You read research? Whoop-dee-doo. I’m a grad student and have spent the better part of the last 3 years reading research that’s actually relevant to the discussion, not the latest oral surgery techniques.

I also am well versed in research methodology and could pick apart the most well-designed study using the same arguments you have. Well, congrats on having taken research methods, but it doesn’t mean you can discount a study like the one Pangloss posted just because it’s general. That’s how the scientific method works, after all…you build on existing research with something that’s better, more specific, etc.

233

← …doesn’t really see anything wrong with where SteelyD’s t. If I saw him in a gym, I would simply think “That’s a big mofo.” Which honestly is probably the same thing I would think if I saw zraw in the gym, except that he’d be a “pretty big mofo.”

I hadn’t really given it that much thought before, as I’ve always enjoyed being relatively lean. But this thread has me thinking that leanness is pretty overrated.

Also worth mentioning that as much as everyone cites being ‘healthy,’ I seriously doubt that, e.g., Stu is much healthier at 10% than he would be at 15 or even 20. But as people have previously noted, there’s nothing really ‘healthy’ about bodybuilding anyway.

Another related thought is that the obsession with leanness is very much a product of the present time–it’s a fad. Just like how in BBing people are now all about mass whereas earlier it might have been more about aesthetics. The qualities deemed ‘attractive’ are a cultural, temporal phenomenon.

234

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The point again, like the other poster made, is that long term it allows more progress.

[/quote]

How can you say that..What are you basing yourself off to say this?

How do you even KNOW this?
[/quote]

@SteelyD.. how is this not impplying what Brick said.. lol
[/quote]

zraw - I don’t really glean any joy or satisfaction arguing semantics.

I didn’t bother searching for the post that you quoted, but the quote itself does not imply “necessary” – as in “adequate calories and protein consumption are necessary for growth”

All I can interpret, given the full catalog of posts PX has made in the past is that by saying “… long term it allows more progress” means that someone who is making strength and/or size gains might notice that they’re smoothing out. Instead of stopping their progress they accept it and keep going. At some future point with more relevant gains, they notice they’ve put on a little more fat, but instead of stopping to diet it off, they accept it as within comfort zone and keep progressing.

In that amount of time, let’s call it one year, that person would have made more noticable strength and size gains than someone who keeps stopping to diet just to remain at some fat% or shirt size or ab visibility. In that respect, the style of continued progression (or, non-dieting) has ‘allowed’ that person to make more progress (strength/size) than the constant dieter. Only that person can determine if the ‘progress’ was quality or not for their goals.

That’s all I ever read into PX’s posts and all that I interpreted as ‘implied’.

zraw - did you ever get my PMs I sent somewhat recently (weeks)?[/quote]

My PMs are blocked :frowning: I wouldve replied if I had received it

If its something I “can” answer post it in my offseason thread if u like :slight_smile:

As far as the rest is concerned you may be right.. but to me this came off as “you will progress more if you accept the fullhouse/smoother look for a while”.. and that imo, is not necessary

235

@steelyD - are you natural at 5’8 265?

out of interest what are your PRs in the PLs?

236

[quote]hastalles wrote:
As far as I can tell, no one in here actually “admitted” to wanting the fullhouse look. Since this is BSL, not BB-ing, I think it’ll be a good safe zone for me to say this. :smiley:

I don’t want to give the illusion of being big via leanness and special bodybuilding symmetry and lines or whatever the fuck. I want to actually be MASSIVE. If some of that weight and size is a coating of fat, I’m totally fine with that.

I AM chasing a number on the scale (and numbers on the bar) and I’m not sorry.

I don’t like being really lean, I feel better and more powerful the heavier I am. I think super shredded physiques look ridiculous. A crazy shredded person is one step away from starving, why the hell would you want to look like that? I want to look like Steely.

(I realize it takes a crazy amount of discipline and work to get shredded and all that other bodybuilding stuff and I don’t mean any disrespect to those who do that)

So yeah, I actually want to be 300 lb and 20% BF. (most likely not possible at my height, but that’s besides the point. Was just an example.)

Only posted this cause I don’t think anyone else was willing to admit to being a wannabe musclebear in here. :D[/quote]

I want to be big and strong and “full house” as well. Unfortunately, even though there’s some guys here with success in what I’m interested in achieving, it’s tough to learn anything because every physique-oriented thread turns into a stupid shitshow.

237

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

Even if correlation implied causation, how would the study determine which way the causality operated?
Think about this: what if, by the very nature of what insulin resistance is (think about it), it was actually the case that insulin resistance was a prior condition that caused increases in bf%. Furthermore, what if diet and training improvements affected insulin sensitivity first, and the improved insulin sensitivity subsequently affected bf%? Are there any thoughts on this?

[/quote]

Best post regarding the insulin sensitivity debate here. Finally, someone’s thinking like a scientist here.

Additionally, as correlation does not equal causation, we cannot discount the possibility of confounding factors. It is quite possible that leanness or low BMI also positively correlate with differences in diet, physical activity, stress, mental health, socioeconomic status, general health, etc. in the general population. These third factors may or may not have associations (causal or not) with insulin sensitivity.

Even the study posted subsequent to Pangloss’s cannot demonstrate direct causation. It does not demonstrate that reduced body fat causes increased insulin sensitivity, it demonstrates that reduced body fat resulting from a “1-year lifestyle intervention” causes increased insulin sensitivity.

Additionally, if you do believe that there is direct causation, this places the burden of proof on you to come up with a physiological mechanism for this.

That said, for day to day (not scientific) training purposes, we should take a pragmatic approach. While it is debatable at best to imply a direct causal mechanism with the information at hand, we all know the effects of diet on insulin sensitivity. And we all slack on our diets at least a little more when we’re at stages where don’t care about BF. If you don’t, you get a cookie (or not… THINK ABOUT YOUR INSULIN SENSITIVITY!!!).

Cliffs:
The scientific approach: too many confounding factors to determine direct causation, no physiological mechanism provided
The pragmatic approach: I think it’s safe to assume that we live different lifestyles when we are maintaining low BF% or in a “not giving a shit about weight” phase, and this would likely affect insulin sensitivity.

238

640×960 82.4 KB

Fwiw, I find the ideal full house look to be Kai in this picture. Definitely, bigger, stronger,leaner. Hat blows my mind is that he still has to lose 25+ pounds in order to be contest shape.

239

433×640 151 KB

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Fwiw, I find the ideal full house look to be Kai in this picture. Definitely, bigger, stronger,leaner. Hat blows my mind is that he still has to lose 25+ pounds in order to be contest shape.[/quote]

Yes, it’s unreal when you see pictures like that. You think, “Damn, and he has to lose more?!” Here’s a full house Iook I like too.

240

640×960 63.2 KB

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Fwiw, I find the ideal full house look to be Kai in this picture. Definitely, bigger, stronger,leaner. Hat blows my mind is that he still has to lose 25+ pounds in order to be contest shape.[/quote]

Yes, it’s unreal when you see pictures like that. You think, “Damn, and he has to lose more?!” Here’s a full house Iook I like too. [/quote]

I know right!? Very mindblowning. Frank McGrath takes the cake for me though. I want to take a photo of me in the same get up and hopefully one day close to same amount of muscle and leanness. A guy can dream right?