'Full House' ???

Training
241

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You were asking for a specific mechanism?

“Endocrine, inflammatory, and neuronal pathways link obesity to insulin resistance. (A) The obesity-associated increase in FAs can trigger insulin resistance through intracellular metabolites that activate PKC, leading to the activation of serine/threonine kinases that inhibit insulin signaling. (B) Obesity-associated changes in secretion of adipokines that modulate insulin signaling. (C) Obesity-associated inflammatory factors. Obesity is characterized by an increase in the accumulation of ATMs, which increase the adipose tissue production of inflammatory cytokines that inhibit insulin signaling. (D) Endocrine and inflammatory mediators converging on serine/threonine kinases that inhibit insulin signaling. (E) Obesity-associated activation of NF-κB heightens inflammatory responses that exacerbate insulin resistance. (F) SOCS family proteins, induced by adipokines, induce insulin resistance either by interfering with IRS-1 and IRS-2 tyrosine phosphorylation or by targeting IRS-1 and IRS-2 for proteosomal degradation. (G) FAs also trigger insulin resistance by direct activation of TLR4 and the innate immune response. (H) Obesity-related alteration in the central response to hormonal and nutrient signals alters peripheral insulin sensitivity.”

242

Yup! And these pictures show what the very best do: keep lean year round AND progress while doing so.

243

Re: “Putting on brakes.”

As I and others have said before, as a natural, after the first three years, provided everything has been done correctly, gains in size come at a snail’s and/or are negligible, something like 5 pounds or less per year–if that!

NO ONE is in a constant state of progress after that. So deciding to cut down isn’t putting on the brakes.

244

@steely D

  • are you natural?

have you considered the following:

you and Stu are both about 5’8 he competes at 175 and says is still pretty lean with abs at 205

you are the same height and weigh 265

clearly as you have said you are not interested in being lean etc

even so maybe it is something to think about that you are 90lbs over his stage weight and 60lbs over his fatter weight, i.e. you could likely lose 50lbs and still not be anywhere near lean. similarly i think detazatoth is a 5’8 or so PL walking around at about 205 lifting huge numbers. if all 3 of you are natural surely a 60lbs higher weight seems like a hell of a lot? especially as you are all the same height and the other 2 already have excellent genetics (based on both’s strength levels), so it’s unlikely you have massively superior genetics to either of them.

in all seriousness i am only raising this as these numbers in the cold light of day may make you rethink your approach, yes you have different genetics and goals etc but even so 60lbs or so to see abs when only standing 5’8 is a hell of a lot, especially with being over 40

245

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Re: “Putting on brakes.”

As I and others have said before, as a natural, after the first three years, provided everything has been done correctly, gains in size come at a snail’s and/or are negligible, something like 5 pounds or less per year–if that!

NO ONE is in a constant state of progress after that. So deciding to cut down isn’t putting on the brakes. [/quote]

Thanks, btw I like the new attitude change from the old brick.

246

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Re: “Putting on brakes.”

As I and others have said before, as a natural, after the first three years, provided everything has been done correctly, gains in size come at a snail’s and/or are negligible, something like 5 pounds or less per year–if that!

NO ONE is in a constant state of progress after that. So deciding to cut down isn’t putting on the brakes. [/quote]
Thanks, btw I like the new attitude change from the old brick.[/quote]

Thank you very much. I matured quite a bit and realized the error of my ways.

247

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

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

Well that’s my point, really. If you do have physique goals, I don’t see why you wouldn’t drop a few, I can’t imagine the extra weight you lose would drastically affect your lifts.

Agreed. But I have to ask, are we endorsing keeping the extra fat just for the sake of keeping the extra fat? I’m asking about your situation personally, because you’re a damn house and it’s very impressive, I just can’t help but feel you’d look even more awesome with no detriment to your lifts. Nah mean?

FTR, I feel the same about PX.

248

Even Charles Poliquin, has some alright things to say:

Poliquin:
" Believing the bulking-up nonsense
In the so-called Golden Age of Bodybuilding where bodybuilders were known by their first names (e.g., Arnold, Louie and Sergio), bulking up in the off-season and then cutting up was standard practice. Besides the obvious health problems associated with adding excess fat, bulking up is a really bad approach to trying to achieve your physique or athletic fitness goals. Here are six reasons why:

ANTI-BULKING FACT #1. Bulking-up diet programs won?t produce any more muscle growth than ingesting an ideal amount of nutrients. Sorry, but it?s simply not possible to force additional muscle growth by overfeeding.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #2. Bulking up develops insulin resistance, which makes it harder in the long run to gain muscle. What happens when you bulk up is that carbohydrates will go preferentially to fat stores, not to muscle tissue.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #3. Bulking up will make it harder for you to get leaner because insulin resistance is hard to reverse. The fatter you get, the harder it becomes to get lean. Female bodybuilders learn this fact quickly, as it is considerably harder for women to reach the low body-fat levels required for competition.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #4. The fatter you get, the more aromatase enzyme your body will produce. In the extreme, getting fat could be considered a form of self-castration, as your own testosterone will be converted into the female hormone estrogen and you will suffer many unwanted side effects. If you?re a man and you enjoy wearing a bra, go right ahead and get fatter.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #5. Getting fatter will ramp down the effectiveness of your thyroid hormone production ? not a good thing, because thyroid production is essential for fat loss. The fatter your abdominal wall becomes, the less conversion there will be of T4 to T3, the metabolically active form of thyroid.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #6. The lower your percentage of body fat, the better your body becomes at nutrient partitioning. This means individuals with low body fat are more effective at storing the ingested nutrients in the muscle (as muscle tissue or glycogen) or in the liver (as glycogen) and less effective at storing nutrients as body fat. To put it in simpler terms, leaner individuals can eat more nutrients without gaining fat.

ANTI-BULKING FACT #7. The idea that ?a calorie is a calorie? is a bunch of bunk. Calories from sweet potatoes are great for building muscle; calories from beer are not. For that matter, getting fat increases the risk of dying from any cause, even terrorist attacks. I?m serious ? you?re a bigger target and you can?t get out of danger as fast.‘’

249

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You are in good shape, but I mean BIG people noticing you lift, not the average person today who still thinks Mcgwire in Spiderman was “built”.[/quote]

One of my fondest memories is walking down Broadway in the village when I was in grad school, and having some seriously huge monster of a BBer give me the “'Sup-Bro?” head nod. I felt like I had been acknowledged as a member of the fraternity and not some wannabe.

S[/quote]

That is awesome.

250

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Re: “Putting on brakes.”

As I and others have said before, as a natural, after the first three years, provided everything has been done correctly, gains in size come at a snail’s and/or are negligible, something like 5 pounds or less per year–if that!

NO ONE is in a constant state of progress after that. So deciding to cut down isn’t putting on the brakes. [/quote]

this was my understanding too. if you are only capable of putting on say 3-5lb of muscle in a year as a natty, why maintain such a high bodyfat. you should have no problem gaining those extra 5lbs of muscle now staying within a reasonably low bodyfat percentage.

251

Thanks Brick for that quote from Charles. He’s had some really good pieces over the years addressing some fairly common old school myths. I’ve personally been saying that 1st point for years. It sounds like common sense (you can only fill a cup until it’s full, after that it just spills over = you can just address your nutrient needs in building muscle, after that it just spills over), but I know we will always find lifters who adamantly believes they’re the exception.

S

252

[quote]Apoklyps wrote:

[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.[/quote]

It is possible you are right, but your point is inconsequential. If the lifestyle that causes fat gain causes insulin resistance and the lifestyle that causes leaning out causes increased sensitivity, the overall point stands. In that cause, leaning out still increases sensitivity and getting fat decreases it. If you want to increase sensitivity, you’d still lean out, the mechanism would just be in the process instead of the act of being lean. Same result.

Like you were mentioning, in terms of getting bigger and leaner, the science can be useful, but it isn’t necessary. If I squat and my legs get bigger, I don’t need to know the mechanism of muscle building to get big legs from squats.

253

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
@steely D

  • are you natural?
    [/quote]

Best compliment ever. Thank you.

Honestly, no. The numbers don’t mean anything to me (other than how much am I lifting). I develop software that models electric distribution networks for a living. When I’m done doing that at the end of the day, no more numbers – I just want to lift real heavy shit.

For the record, I have been at this weight for almost a year now. I have leaned out and added 20 lbs to my bench last year. The leaning out is gradual and I’ll get there eventually.

I’m not holding weight just to hold weight. I’m a busy dude. My 2 hrs a day for gym is immutable in my schedule, but to commit to a quick-loss diet is just not in my site right now. In my mind, gaining is about time and patience and a little self control to eat enough to gain. Losing is a mental mindfuck and requires magnitudes more self control and preparation for the right food at the right time. A lot easier to fuck things up. I’ve lost 70 lbs before, I know the drill. I’m not there yet with my goals.

re: health - I get regular panels done. Health concerns are under control. Thanks.

I appreciate everyone’s concern for my physique and health. You guys nag worse than my wife :wink:

I think the bottom line is that what I’m doing now is the best balance between life, lifting, and goals. I would never adamantly stand by ‘this is the best way to do it’, rather, I am just sharing my experience and others can take what they want from it. I know I’ve made some mistakes, but that’s what learning is. I logged a good portion of 4 years in O35.

254

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

I’m not holding weight just to hold weight. I’m a busy dude. My 2 hrs a day for gym is immutable in my schedule, but to commit to a quick-loss diet is just not in my site right now.
[/quote]

This is really not an attack, at all

But I never seem to get it when ppl use an “excuse” like this… I mean dieting doesnt take more time or energy… you still cook your meals when you are gaining…?

But maybe its just cause I go into offseason and dieting with the same mindset … which means prep the same # of meal and dont stray away from my diet ever… so to me being in “growth” mode actually is “harder” because I need to eat more (takes more time), I need to prep more food (takes more time) and in the end it cost more

It might also be because I dont really like eating… lol

255

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Ahh, fuck it. I was going to post this prog pic, then decided not to enter the fray, but, whatever, I don’t really care.

So, this was this week at a gym in Toronto. This is leg day btw. (5-8" and change, 265#). Hard to see, but vascularity in arms and shoulders, smooth but not soft abs.

I don’t know if this is “full house” or not, and I freely admit I could stand to drop 25 lbs. I might be 20% or 30% or 40% fat, clinically obese, or whatever, I don’t know. However, I detected a lot of eyes on me in the gym like I’ve never noticed before in the 2 weeks I was there and I don’t think they were thinking “My God, that dude is one fatass fuck”.

Only one person I saw was near my size and he was just taller (read: took up the same amount of space but not necessarily developed). He was a powerlifter and literally walked across the gym, packed shoulder to shoulder, by the way, to ask for spots. That was a nice implied compliment.

Don’t read this like I’m happy with my current physique, or that I think some shinig example of anything-- I have years of work ahead of me.

However, other than the skewed persective of a small population of e-lifters and competitive bodybuilders could someone look at me (or guys like mmeat, px, the former heavythrower physique) and immediately think “Obesely fat”.[/quote]

you look rediculus steely, every time you post a pic seems you get more impressive. good work and congrats.

ps i want your shoulders. no hommo…well maybe just a little…

256

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
In my mind, gaining is about time and patience and a little self control to eat enough to gain. Losing is a mental mindfuck and requires magnitudes more self control and preparation for the right food at the right time.[/quote]

funnily enough, I find the total opposite. I fucking hate having to stuff my face all the damn time to gain, I find dieting easier because I just throw in fasts which I’ve always been able to do quite easily.

Could this explain why some people prefer full house to ripped? I prefer ripped because to me getting ripped is easier, so that biases me towards preferring ripped physiques because subconsciously I think they’re easier for me to attain. Someone who struggles to diet prefers the full house look because subconsciously when they see a full house physique they think they could attain that easier than a shredded physique.

gettin all psychological up in here

257

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Ahh, fuck it. I was going to post this prog pic, then decided not to enter the fray, but, whatever, I don’t really care. This is leg day btw. (5-8" and change, 265#)

So, this was this week at a gym in Toronto.

I don’t know if this is “full house” or not, and I freely admit I could stand to drop 25 lbs. I might be 20% or 30% or 40% fat, clinically obese, or whatever, I don’t know. However, I detected a lot of eyes on me in the gym and in 2 weeks like I’ve never noticed before and I don’t think they were thinking “My God, that dude is one fatass fuck”.

Only one person I saw was near my size and he was just taller (read: took up the same amount of space but not necessarily developed). He was a powerlifter and literally walked across the gym, packed shoulder to shouler by the way, to ask for spots. That was nice.

Don’t read this like I’m happy with my current physique, I have years of work ahead of me. However, other than the skewed persective of a small population of e-lifters and competitive bodybuilders could someone look at me (or guys like mmeat, px, the former heavythrower physique) and immediately think “Obesely fat”.
[/quote]

Your posts here are VERY reasonable. I am able to see things both ways: an obese person, who may OR may not be obese as the result of eating practices NECESSARY for success in some strength sports. If I see a hugely muscular guy like yourself, who might be carrying a relatively high bodyfat percentage, I recognize him for what he is: perhaps a Strongman competitor or a competitive powerlifter or just a guy who loves putting up big numbers or a guy who simply doesn’t care about bodyfat levels.

However, if someone asked me, despite them being great powerlifters, if Donnie Thompson, Andy Bolton, or Jeff Lewis is fat or obese, I’d respond, “Yes!” And if someone asked me if a guy carrying 25 to 30% is obese, I’d respond “Yes,” regardless if they lift or not or how well they carry their weight.[/quote]

i get what you are saying, and i agree in the pic i posted i am clearly fat,

but not sure why i am making this point but here it goes,

i was very very athletic. i could do full splits, some of my rotational throwing drills i doubt many of the so called lean and in condition people on this site could do,

i could do one leg bleacher hops taking two at a time weight over 260lbs,

i could do dead fall pushups from a standing position then back up, i could snatch 185 from my sitting on my knees to a standing position,

i could go on

i guess my point is the reason many are balking at the being categorized as “fat” is that it does not just co-notate high body fat % but also carries the stigma of being slow, lazy, un-athletic, sloth, ect. which at least in my case i certainly was not.

hell, at my peak of my throwing career, my warm up and warm downs (which included weighted sprints with the sled, technique drills with bodyweight and or different size and shape PUDS, and light olympic lift complexes) which i did at the start and and the end of my real workouts would be more volume and too hard for many to do as their main workout.

258

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[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.[/quote]

boom. well said.

259

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Ahh, fuck it. I was going to post this prog pic, then decided not to enter the fray, but, whatever, I don’t really care. This is leg day btw. (5-8" and change, 265#)

So, this was this week at a gym in Toronto.

I don’t know if this is “full house” or not, and I freely admit I could stand to drop 25 lbs. I might be 20% or 30% or 40% fat, clinically obese, or whatever, I don’t know. However, I detected a lot of eyes on me in the gym and in 2 weeks like I’ve never noticed before and I don’t think they were thinking “My God, that dude is one fatass fuck”.

Only one person I saw was near my size and he was just taller (read: took up the same amount of space but not necessarily developed). He was a powerlifter and literally walked across the gym, packed shoulder to shouler by the way, to ask for spots. That was nice.

Don’t read this like I’m happy with my current physique, I have years of work ahead of me. However, other than the skewed persective of a small population of e-lifters and competitive bodybuilders could someone look at me (or guys like mmeat, px, the former heavythrower physique) and immediately think “Obesely fat”.
[/quote]

Your posts here are VERY reasonable. I am able to see things both ways: an obese person, who may OR may not be obese as the result of eating practices NECESSARY for success in some strength sports. If I see a hugely muscular guy like yourself, who might be carrying a relatively high bodyfat percentage, I recognize him for what he is: perhaps a Strongman competitor or a competitive powerlifter or just a guy who loves putting up big numbers or a guy who simply doesn’t care about bodyfat levels.

However, if someone asked me, despite them being great powerlifters, if Donnie Thompson, Andy Bolton, or Jeff Lewis is fat or obese, I’d respond, “Yes!” And if someone asked me if a guy carrying 25 to 30% is obese, I’d respond “Yes,” regardless if they lift or not or how well they carry their weight.[/quote]

i get what you are saying, and i agree in the pic i posted i am clearly fat,

but not sure why i am making this point but here it goes,

i was very very athletic. i could do full splits, some of my rotational throwing drills i doubt many of the so called lean and in condition people on this site could do,

i could do one leg bleacher hops taking two at a time weight over 260lbs,

i could do dead fall pushups from a standing position then back up, i could snatch 185 from my sitting on my knees to a standing position,

i could go on

i guess my point is the reason many are balking at the being categorized as “fat” is that it does not just co-notate high body fat % but also carries the stigma of being slow, lazy, un-athletic, sloth, ect. which at least in my case i certainly was not.

hell, at my peak of my throwing career, my warm up and warm downs (which included weighted sprints with the sled, technique drills with bodyweight and or different size and shape PUDS, and light olympic lift complexes) which i did at the start and and the end of my real workouts would be more volume and too hard for many to do as their main workout. [/quote]

remember though that we’re talking about the full house “look” here. Obviously it can’t be detrimental to performance or there wouldn’t be big guys like yourself doing it

EDIT: and that puppy in your avatar melts me everytime

260

hahaha he is over 135lbs now.