'Full House' ???

Training
81

[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
These threads are either incredibly stupid or incredibly myopic.

Maiden keeps asking “Well, what if that guy lost 15lbs of fat and retained all the muscle???” First, some people place enough of a priority on the muscle that they don’t want to spare any for the fat loss. Retaining literally all the muscle is going to be tough sledding.

The more important thing, though, is that not everyone lives and dies by how they look. Some people want to be big and strong but have other responsibilities in life. Staying very lean requires a lot of commitment and consistency–if someone is, e.g., working 100 hour weeks, has kids to take care of, or is having to travel a lot or take clients out to meals, then they’re going to have a hard time doing this.

I feel like a lot of posters here don’t really realize how small a community “weightlifters” or “bodybuilders” really is. Realize that to the vast majority of people, builds ranging from Meadows to zraw are considered unattractive and even freakish.

And frankly, if someone like X went and lost 30 pounds even, he might notice but hardly anyone else would in clothes. Because people pay way less attention to this junk than I think the average TNationer realizes.[/quote]

My confusion came from people that prefer the full house LOOK. Yet every guy who has that look, I contend, would look better after losing some fat. Seems most agree, X as well, though i could be wrong. I am not talking about what is more comfortable. Shit you could argue being full house is just as much a commitment and being leaner, and probably more uncomfortable. However, im just talking about the look itself.

And lol about the responsibilities comment. Some people use that as an excuse, others dont.

82

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
me at a highlands games in the early 1990s, over 260lbs. fuck! i was filling out xxl shirts and damn i was as wide as i was tall…

i looked like a midget sumo- wrestler.

[/quote]
That’s NOT how you do the limbo Heavythrower… -_-

83

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
me at a highlands games in the early 1990s, over 260lbs. fuck! i was filling out xxl shirts and damn i was as wide as i was tall…

i looked like a midget sumo- wrestler.

[/quote]

This pic is awesome in so many ways, props to you bro, with all you have been through and all you have accomplished

84

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
me at a highlands games in the early 1990s, over 260lbs. fuck! i was filling out xxl shirts and damn i was as wide as i was tall…

i looked like a midget sumo- wrestler.

[/quote]

How old are you there? You look like the little fat kid off modern family lol.

85

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

My confusion came from people that prefer the full house LOOK. Yet every guy who has that look, I contend, would look better after losing some fat. Seems most agree, X as well, though i could be wrong. I am not talking about what is more comfortable. Shit you could argue being full house is just as much a commitment and being leaner, and probably more uncomfortable. However, im just talking about the look itself.

And lol about the responsibilities comment. Some people use that as an excuse, others dont. [/quote]

Yes, some people ‘use that as an excuse,’ and ‘others don’t.’ I’m not saying it’s an excuse–it’s a reason.

And most who ‘lol’ at someone who cites other responsibilities probably does not have many himself. Personally, I’ll be starting a job this fall that involves working unpredictable hours, averages 70 hours/week, and involves a lot of ‘off-the-clock’ time commitments. Some people have kids–a responsibility that I can’t even fathom, tbh.

I am talking about why people opt for the ‘full house’ look. It’s probably because it’s easier for them to manage in their day-to-day lives. And they probably don’t think that the marginal gain from losing 10 pounds is worth what it takes to be big and lean.

That’s the key: being big and lean year-round takes commitment. Just being lean does not, and just being big does not. But having both takes a consistent lifestyle that not all of us will have the luxury of enjoying. But we aren’t all going to be schoolteachers, work in a gym (not that there’s anything wrong with either of those), or have a 9-5 job.

86

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Leaning out from 218 to 191, my fasting glucose (an indicator of insulin sensitivity) went from 100 to around 70.

Sense then I’m up about 6 pounds and look leaner with a lower thickness of abdominal fat.

Please don’t tell me what does and doesn’t work for me. I’m not telling you what does or doesn’t work for you.[/quote]
you looked pretty crappy before, but now you look like a bodybuilder haha. pretty cool that you are healthier too. You definitely didn’t loose muscle - I think the whole muscle loss thing is overrated unless you’re looking at a long/brutal cut.

My blood pressure was in the ultra high ranges a few months ago. Dropping 20 lbs (all through diet, so my “cardio”/conditioning hasn’t improved) has put them in great ranges.

87

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Leaning out from 218 to 191, my fasting glucose (an indicator of insulin sensitivity) went from 100 to around 70.

Sense then I’m up about 6 pounds and look leaner with a lower thickness of abdominal fat.

Please don’t tell me what does and doesn’t work for me. I’m not telling you what does or doesn’t work for you.[/quote]
you looked pretty crappy before, but now you look like a bodybuilder haha. pretty cool that you are healthier too. You definitely didn’t loose muscle - I think the whole muscle loss thing is overrated unless you’re looking at a long/brutal cut.

My blood pressure was in the ultra high ranges a few months ago. Dropping 20 lbs (all through diet, so my “cardio”/conditioning hasn’t improved) has put them in great ranges.[/quote]

I got plenty of “Damn, your a brick house” comments when wearing a shirt. Probably in large part because of my back (which has always been thick), which doesn’t seem to ever gain much fat. At 240 You could still see the Christmas tree outline in my back.

88

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I have seen none, but if you can find a study that specifically shows a young lifter who trains daily and is HUGE who somehow has worse “insulin sensitivity” ONLY because he is a little fatter right now than last month, post it.

That is why some of us talk about “bro science”. There are tons of people simply willing to accept this as truth without any proof other than talk.[/quote]

What a frustrating way to try to have a discussion. As a medical professional, you must realize how ridiculous an expectation of a study like that one is.

Can you post a study that specifically shows a lifter who trains daily and is huge who somehow has more muscle ONLY because he gained a lot of weight, held it for a while, then leaned out, rather than gained it more slowly while keeping fat gain in check? Of course not, and that shouldn’t be a requirement to discuss whether or not others have gotten good results from it, and noticed that it seemed to help them personally.

89

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
this is interesting, I always thought that the higher bodyfat = more insulin resistant was a fundamental truth of bodybuilding.

Didn’t realise that it only related to obese people.

Surely though, even if the studies done were on obese people, it must be on a scale with the two processes - becoming obese and developing insulin resistance - happening together. It’s not like you would become obese and then BAM you are insulin resistant without going through a transition from sensitivity to resistance. I would think the insulin resistance would have to come on gradually, just like the obesity, and it would happen at the same time.

I’m just thinking out loud here. Are there no studies that show insulin sensitivity getting worse as a person gets fatter?[/quote]

Yes, there are, but they are generally done on obese people. Many trainers take this info and then relate it to anyone who gains body fat.

I have seen none, but if you can find a study that specifically shows a young lifter who trains daily and is HUGE who somehow has worse “insulin sensitivity” ONLY because he is a little fatter right now than last month, post it.

That is why some of us talk about “bro science”. There are tons of people simply willing to accept this as truth without any proof other than talk.[/quote]

That is the difficult thing about the iron game. Little research has been done and a lot of advice given is “broscience” because it usually has some scientific merit to it. At least in theory. With the fitness industry growing, I bet we will see a lot more advances in the science behind building a better body.

Edit: ^Full house for sure.
[/quote]

Doubtful. A lot of time and money is invested in conducting studies, and they’re mostly done utilizing the resources of a university or institution. Much of the material used in the fitness industry has a basis in health and/or performance and the information is later interpreted and applied to the pursuit of bodybuilding. However, the overall data always has intended applications outside of this goal. I don’t see funding going towards a series of them with the aim of building a better body, unless it is done so privately.

90

Since there’s been discussion about bulking I don’t think this question is too off topic.

If a guy pushing 20%BF is dieting down to 15%, or even 10-12% is that really going to put the breaks on muscle gains assuming hes taking in adequate nutrition? Even if it is would the gains obtained be better than if the guys goal was to be a bigger version of himself around 8-12% body fat and tackle bulking more cautiously(Shelby for example going from 10-15% and repeating the cycle)?

91

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No a slow metabolism usually means more fat gain. Most bodybuilders would desire a fast metabolism so they could eat what they wanted.

As far as your comments about insulin sensitivity, one thing I hate lately is guys acting like they have this figured out…when I for one know they are doing this without blood tests but some generalized idea of these concepts.

Unless you were truly getting fat to the point of being OBESE and decreasing mobility, I would back off of spreading the false idea that simply being leaner somehow enhances insulin sensitivity. I have seen no evidence that someone is better in this area just because they are now “12%” instead of “15%”.
[/quote]

The relationship between leanness as measured by BMI and insulin sensitivity is well known and documented. This study used healthy young men, not obese middle-aged females.

Objectives The study goals were to: 1) define the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and insulin resistance in 314 nondiabetic, normotensive, healthy volunteers; and 2) determine the relationship between each of these two variables and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors.

Results The BMI and the SSPG concentration were significantly related (r = 0.465, p < 0.001). The BMI and SSPG were both independently associated with each of the nine risk factors. In multiple regression analysis, SSPG concentration added modest to substantial power to BMI with regard to the prediction of DBP, HDL cholesterol and TG concentrations, and the glucose and insulin responses

Relationship between obesity, insulin resistance, and coronary heart disease risk FREE
Fahim Abbasi, MD; Byron William Brown, Jr, PhD; Cindy Lamendola, MSN, ANP; Tracey McLaughlin, MD; Gerald M Reaven, MD

92

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

No a slow metabolism usually means more fat gain. Most bodybuilders would desire a fast metabolism so they could eat what they wanted.

As far as your comments about insulin sensitivity, one thing I hate lately is guys acting like they have this figured out…when I for one know they are doing this without blood tests but some generalized idea of these concepts.

Unless you were truly getting fat to the point of being OBESE and decreasing mobility, I would back off of spreading the false idea that simply being leaner somehow enhances insulin sensitivity. I have seen no evidence that someone is better in this area just because they are now “12%” instead of “15%”.
[/quote]

The relationship between leanness as measured by BMI and insulin sensitivity is well known and documented. This study used healthy young men, not obese middle-aged females.

Objectives The study goals were to: 1) define the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and insulin resistance in 314 nondiabetic, normotensive, healthy volunteers; and 2) determine the relationship between each of these two variables and coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors.

Results The BMI and the SSPG concentration were significantly related (r = 0.465, p < 0.001). The BMI and SSPG were both independently associated with each of the nine risk factors. In multiple regression analysis, SSPG concentration added modest to substantial power to BMI with regard to the prediction of DBP, HDL cholesterol and TG concentrations, and the glucose and insulin responses

Relationship between obesity, insulin resistance, and coronary heart disease risk FREE
Fahim Abbasi, MD; Byron William Brown, Jr, PhD; Cindy Lamendola, MSN, ANP; Tracey McLaughlin, MD; Gerald M Reaven, MD [/quote]

And I bet the relationship would be even better with body fat percentage than with BMI.

93

[quote]The3Commandments wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

My confusion came from people that prefer the full house LOOK. Yet every guy who has that look, I contend, would look better after losing some fat. Seems most agree, X as well, though i could be wrong. I am not talking about what is more comfortable. Shit you could argue being full house is just as much a commitment and being leaner, and probably more uncomfortable. However, im just talking about the look itself.

And lol about the responsibilities comment. Some people use that as an excuse, others dont. [/quote]

Yes, some people ‘use that as an excuse,’ and ‘others don’t.’ I’m not saying it’s an excuse–it’s a reason.

And most who ‘lol’ at someone who cites other responsibilities probably does not have many himself. Personally, I’ll be starting a job this fall that involves working unpredictable hours, averages 70 hours/week, and involves a lot of ‘off-the-clock’ time commitments. Some people have kids–a responsibility that I can’t even fathom, tbh.

I am talking about why people opt for the ‘full house’ look. It’s probably because it’s easier for them to manage in their day-to-day lives. And they probably don’t think that the marginal gain from losing 10 pounds is worth what it takes to be big and lean.

That’s the key: being big and lean year-round takes commitment. Just being lean does not, and just being big does not. But having both takes a consistent lifestyle that not all of us will have the luxury of enjoying. But we aren’t all going to be schoolteachers, work in a gym (not that there’s anything wrong with either of those), or have a 9-5 job. [/quote]

No one cares how many hrs you work, atleast i dont. Ive worked.some long ass hours as im sure most others here have aswell but you wont see me complaining.

I understand why people opt for full house based on convenience. What i dnt understand why the look, as far as bbing, is seen as an ideal end goal physique by some people that call themselves bbers. I have also not said anything about being big and lean year round. I just stated, for bbing, that is the end goal.

If someone wants to be big and 20% bf at all times based on convenience or work, great. I dont have any issue with that and that is not what I started the thread about.

94

[quote]SavagedNatiion wrote:
Full house… this Fucking term again. Anyway, I would always be impressed with a big beastly offseason bastards with moderate fat gains than a scrawny physique guy ( yeah I said it). My theory is, some people become monsters, and some are not inclined to become a big muscular monstrosity hence, men’s physique class (btw Wtf is women’s physique?).

Some people put in work, gain muscle with a little fat and water, and some stay consistently the same Fucking size! You can’t expect to make mo gainzzzzz, without a little fat i.e., offseason. Some people gain muscle, and some do 5 hours of cardio, 10 days a week abs, polymetrics and don board shorts. Shrugs[/quote]

Why the comparison of full house with a scrawny calvin klein model? Fuck i think most here would be more impressed with the full house dude. But when you compare the full house dude to someone relative to his muscle mass but with less fat, its clear which looks better. I dont think anyone is sayimg to forego an offseasom or mass phase in order t stay klein model lean year round.

95

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I guess I don’t understand what the fascination is with the “full house” look. Would you rather be big, muscular and lean… or big, muscular and fat? I will choose the former every time. It’s one thing to say getting big, muscular and fat is beneficial to help you acheive the big and lean physique one day, but to look at “full house” as an end goal, in a bbing forum, I just dont get.

Please help me. [/quote]

Why do you care? Do these guys get in the way of your goals?

Here’s an answer, all people are different and all aspire to look differently.

james

96

[quote]zraw wrote:
Well what I understand is that a lot of people are happy with being full house and do not think these guys look fat therefor no one has the right to think they are fat and judge them because only your own opinion matters when it comes to your body

[/quote]

This dude know what he’s talking about - 100%. And he’s a beast so walks the walk, as well as not being contentious about everything. (which some dudes are who frequent the site - yes if your asked for an honest opinion give it, just don;t be a dick all the time)
I’m 35, about 10% bf - 175lbs. Training for 10 years…
‘What only 175% and 10%bf, what’s he been doing?! I’d be like 220lbs ripped by then if I’d been training 10 years’.
I’ve been bigger, ripped the whole lot. Never doen a show. Had health issues, lost weight for boxing and Muay Thai. I’m happy the way I am at presnt, fit, healthy, active and hsppy.
I don’t judge anymore.
Who the fuck has the right to judge or do a character assassination based on size, bf, age, trainig experience? Wanna get ripped and big do a show? - good for you. Just wanna look good naked? - Good for you. Wanna get big, fit that t-shirt and not worry about a bit of fat? - good for you.

Rant over - Zraw I respect your posts and appreciate your opioons and ideas. For all I know your the kinda dude that pissed in the public swimming pool on a hot day, I dunno cos I don’t know you. I just know that 99% of the folks on this site give you props. Good luck with all future shows and endeavors. I’m off to piss in the school pool. (I’m a teacher)

Booyackashck!!

97

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I guess I don’t understand what the fascination is with the “full house” look. Would you rather be big, muscular and lean… or big, muscular and fat? I will choose the former every time. It’s one thing to say getting big, muscular and fat is beneficial to help you acheive the big and lean physique one day, but to look at “full house” as an end goal, in a bbing forum, I just dont get.

Please help me. [/quote]

Why do you care? Do these guys get in the way of your goals?

Here’s an answer, all people are different and all aspire to look differently.

james[/quote]

You are not a bodybuilder if all you care about is getting as big as possible with no real intention of getting “lean”. if someone chooses to maintain a full-house look for there entire lifting career thats fine, but that isnt what bodybuilding is about!

98

[quote]MattyXL wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
me at a highlands games in the early 1990s, over 260lbs. fuck! i was filling out xxl shirts and damn i was as wide as i was tall…

i looked like a midget sumo- wrestler.

[/quote]

This pic is awesome in so many ways, props to you bro, with all you have been through and all you have accomplished[/quote]
wow, thanks. :slight_smile:

99

[quote]dudsman wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
me at a highlands games in the early 1990s, over 260lbs. fuck! i was filling out xxl shirts and damn i was as wide as i was tall…

i looked like a midget sumo- wrestler.

[/quote]

How old are you there? You look like the little fat kid off modern family lol.[/quote]

mid twenties i think.

pfft, i am sure i am way sexier than the little fat kid on modern family.

dont act like you like all that man flesh.