'Full House' ???

Training
121

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Whatever. It works for me and a significant indicator for my insulin sensitivity greatly improved.

I’ll do what works, even if there aren’t specific studies telling me if it should or not.[/quote]

I think the issue is, exactly how fat and out of shape were you before.

Once again, the issue is whether small changes in body fat affect insulin resistance, not some extreme change from really fat to lean.

i think I made it clear that if your mobility was compromised, that would negatively effect you enough on its own to cause changes.

122

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Whatever. It works for me and a significant indicator for my insulin sensitivity greatly improved.

I’ll do what works, even if there aren’t specific studies telling me if it should or not.[/quote]

I think the issue is, exactly how fat and out of shape were you before.

Once again, the issue is whether small changes in body fat affect insulin resistance, not some extreme change from really fat to lean.

i think I made it clear that if your mobility was compromised, that would negatively effect you enough on its own to cause changes.[/quote]

Many of the full house people have SIGNIFICANT amounts of excess fat. Even guys like Lilly and Kennelly. We aren’t talking about 10 pounds here.

But even so, like I mentioned before, its a continuum. There isn’t some magic number you get to and then it helps. If you lose 40 pounds of fat, the first 5 probably help as much as the last 5.

123

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I think the issue is, exactly how fat and out of shape were you before.
[/quote]

The other thing that should be mentioned here is that many people are worse in this area than they admit to themselves.

124

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
i will say again for the record,

my 2 cents,

I am more IMPRESSED with the guys who are as big AND muscular as Proffessor X (fuck that hurt saying that, lol), Marauder Meat, MattyXL, SteelyD, BiggJames, ect,

but,

as far as what I want to look like now at this point in my life, I would rather look like DoubleDeuce, ZZraw, detazathoth Gregron, Cortez, Maiden3.16 ect.

does that make any sense? [/quote]

I think, at any stage of the game, there’s a “larger than life” aspect to it. I love bodybuilding in the competitive sense, because while I can appreciate the intensity of the training, the dedication to the diet etc, I also view it as an art form. To me, that final result, seeing what the human body is capable of (size alone aside) is just an amazing thing.

Of course the one time I worked backstage at a rehearsal and taping of WWE RAW (that’s a story for another time -lol), and I got to hang out, eat, and BS with all of these genetic anomalies (and I say that with the greatest respect), well, despite most of these dudes not being anywhere near what a competitive BBer would consider lean, it was pretty damn impressive.

S
[/quote]
ya, no kidding stu, you nailed it. a guy like matty or X comes into a restaurant me and wifey are eating at, im gonna nudge here and say “damn girl, look at that BIG mother fucker that just walked in, he’s HUGE” lol

but if a guy walks in looking like you or greg, etc. i would not say anything, but i quietly would say to myself “damn, he looks good, i wish i could look like that with my shirt off for my wife when we are on the beach, or in the bedroom, etc.” [/quote]

Completely agree…lol… My only issue is I need to stick to one goal at a time and not bounce back and forth.

125

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Whatever. It works for me and a significant indicator for my insulin sensitivity greatly improved.

I’ll do what works, even if there aren’t specific studies telling me if it should or not.[/quote]

I think the issue is, exactly how fat and out of shape were you before.

Once again, the issue is whether small changes in body fat affect insulin resistance, not some extreme change from really fat to lean.

i think I made it clear that if your mobility was compromised, that would negatively effect you enough on its own to cause changes.[/quote]

Many of the full house people have SIGNIFICANT amounts of excess fat. Even guys like Lilly and Kennelly. We aren’t talking about 10 pounds here.

But even so, like I mentioned before, its a continuum. There isn’t some magic number you get to and then it helps. If you lose 40 pounds of fat, the first 5 probably help as much as the last 5.[/quote]

You misunderstand…BODY FAT ALONE is not a good indicator of “insulin resistance” in a population of “extremely developed” people with “extreme training habits”.

Get it?

Some guy could be really fat…but the fact that they train everyday is keeping them at a certain level of health.

That is why POPULATION STUDIES are horrible considering our population has such specific needs and meets such specific criteria.

126

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I think the issue is, exactly how fat and out of shape were you before.
[/quote]

The other thing that should be mentioned here is that many people are worse in this area than they admit to themselves. [/quote]

Ok, so is the discussion about people who think they look impressive when they are obese?

Look, we are not talking about truly obese people here. Yes, I agree, some people can fool themselves about how much muscle they carry. I am sure I have done so myself in the past. That is a part of adapting to this lifestyle…and how many people reach an EXTREME level without ever pushing those boundaries at all?

127

Remember the forum rules.

You can discuss the topics in the thread, but only if it’s approved and agreeable. No attitudes, please.

You can’t make an analogy pointing out a ridiculous set of parameters because you will be the one actually setting ridiculous parameters.

Make sure every agrees, otherwise you are calling somebody out with a ridiculous approach and, frankly, it’s getting old.

Also, don’t discuss, theorize, advocate, or ask questions about anything that hasn’t been proven by science. Well, this applies to MOST of you.

This thread was a good read until discussion topics got put off limits because some here don’t agree with the premise.

128

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I think the issue is, exactly how fat and out of shape were you before.
[/quote]

The other thing that should be mentioned here is that many people are worse in this area than they admit to themselves. [/quote]

I think certain people should read this statement 100 times over and let it sink in.

129

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Wow…that isn’t what was being discussed…and what is up with the attitude?

The discussion was WHERE IS THE SCIENCE SHOWING BEING JUST A LITTLE FATTER SOMEHOW SHOWS SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN “INSULIN RESISTANCE”.

Look, this ridiculous approach by some of you is getting a little old. If you want to discuss topics, do so. Stop jumping into discussions to call me out for no reason.

Yes, I know there are few studies done on our specific population. That is the point. Bro-science likes to fill in the gaps with what is most popular. This discussion is about what is actually true.[/quote]

“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?

130

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Whatever. It works for me and a significant indicator for my insulin sensitivity greatly improved.

I’ll do what works, even if there aren’t specific studies telling me if it should or not.[/quote]

I think the issue is, exactly how fat and out of shape were you before.

Once again, the issue is whether small changes in body fat affect insulin resistance, not some extreme change from really fat to lean.

i think I made it clear that if your mobility was compromised, that would negatively effect you enough on its own to cause changes.[/quote]

Many of the full house people have SIGNIFICANT amounts of excess fat. Even guys like Lilly and Kennelly. We aren’t talking about 10 pounds here.

But even so, like I mentioned before, its a continuum. There isn’t some magic number you get to and then it helps. If you lose 40 pounds of fat, the first 5 probably help as much as the last 5.[/quote]

You misunderstand…BODY FAT ALONE is not a good indicator of “insulin resistance” in a population of “extremely developed” people with “extreme training habits”.

Get it?[/quote]

I didn’t read anywhere where someone said it was the ONLY one. Just that it IS one.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Some guy could be really fat…but the fact that they train everyday is keeping them at a certain level of health.[/quote]

Being at a certain level of health due to training doesn’t mean their insulin sensitivity couldn’t be improved. It’s not mutually exclusive.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That is why POPULATION STUDIES are horrible considering our population has such specific needs and meets such specific criteria.[/quote]

True. However, you do have people stating here that it HAS improved due to THEIR fat loss, and went from what would be considered “full house” to “lean”. They are speaking from experience and what worked for them. I believe others have used this same type of argument about other topics, no?

131

I’ve experienced a very notable difference in insulin sensitivity when I’m at a lower bodyfat. I keep a lot of fat in my omentum, so that might make a difference.

132

[quote]cueball wrote:
True. However, you do have people stating here that it HAS improved due to THEIR fat loss, and went from what would be considered “full house” to “lean”. They are speaking from experience and what worked for them. I believe others have used this same type of argument about other topics, no?
[/quote]

I’ve never been especially heavy, even years before I started competing, but the amount of carbohydrates my body can handle on a daily basis has improved with every years since that very first contest (and staying relatively leaner in my offseasons). With each successive year’s shows, my stage weight increased by several pounds.

To me, seeing such obvious progress on a yearly basis, (as I approach 40!), well, I don’t think I ever had such progress during my years of thinking I had to keep my weight above a certain point, hoping that I’d one day wake up with a ton of muscle if I only dieted down.

Call it anecdotal, call it broscience, but my experience is very very common among people who suddenly come to the realization that they might be happier maintaining a lighter weight year round.

S

133

[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

134

[quote]cueball wrote:

True. However, you do have people stating here that it HAS improved due to THEIR fat loss, and went from what would be considered “full house” to “lean”. They are speaking from experience and what worked for them. I believe others have used this same type of argument about other topics, no?

[/quote]

I haven’t seen anyone here who was “full house” who showed through blood testing a significant change in insulin resistance.

Full house as we are discussing is NOT someone way over 20% body fat…so unless you saw someone here who fit that description, who are you speaking of?

135

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

Leanness as measured by BMI??? BMI doesn’t measure leanness. It only measures a relationship between height and weight, its measure are not directly related to levels of fat or leanness. BMI is garbage.
[/quote]

Dude my BMI is 29.4. I am 0.6 away from being labeled Obese.

136

[quote]Waittz wrote:

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

Leanness as measured by BMI??? BMI doesn’t measure leanness. It only measures a relationship between height and weight, its measure are not directly related to levels of fat or leanness. BMI is garbage.
[/quote]

Dude my BMI is 29.4. I am 0.6 away from being labeled Obese. [/quote]

LOl…which is the point. You don’t judge bodybuilders by BMI. They are all obese by that.

137

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Wow…that isn’t what was being discussed…and what is up with the attitude?

The discussion was WHERE IS THE SCIENCE SHOWING BEING JUST A LITTLE FATTER SOMEHOW SHOWS SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN “INSULIN RESISTANCE”.

Look, this ridiculous approach by some of you is getting a little old. If you want to discuss topics, do so. Stop jumping into discussions to call me out for no reason.

Yes, I know there are few studies done on our specific population. That is the point. Bro-science likes to fill in the gaps with what is most popular. This discussion is about what is actually true.[/quote]

I was not calling you out for no reason. I was not calling you out because you’re you. Don’t lump me into ‘some of you’ that keep ‘jumping into discussions to call me out for no reason,’ as this is the second interaction we’ve had, and the first one started with you quoting something I said (that was not related to you). If you thought there was attitude there, I apologize, I didn’t mean to come across as attacking you personally. I was pointing out that the expectation of such a study is ridiculous, and in fact, is what will make this topic, and most topics in bodybuilding, very difficult to discuss. I agree that the point is that there are few studies done on our specific population, but I come to a different conclusion due to that point. You say this discussion is about what is actually true. How do we decide (or discuss) what is actually true, if in order to do so, we have to have a study that you and I both know will never exist. Others have shown you a study, on healthy young men, showing a correlation between BMI and insulin sensitivity. As far as studies go, that’s probably the best we’re going to get. Then, as cueball, Stu, DD, and others have pointed out, if studies won’t do it for you, there is lots of anecdotal evidence of bodybuilders who have noticed they respond better to carbs and tend to make better gains, and just feel overall better, while leaner.

I’m not saying your way is wrong or right for everyone, or their way is wrong or right for everyone, but surely that’s enough to not simply ignore, and say ‘show me this specific study’ in order to consider the merit of such an approach.

138

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

I was pointing out that the expectation of such a study is ridiculous, and in fact, is what will make this topic, and most topics in bodybuilding, very difficult to discuss. [/quote]

the problem with this is PEOPLE ARE STILL DISCUSSING IT and they are filling in the gaps with BRO SCIENCE and not truth.

That is why that point was made. They fill in the gaps with what they WANT to be true.

[quote]

You say this discussion is about what is actually true. How do we decide (or discuss) what is actually true[/quote]

By doing what has been done for the past half century in bodybuilding…looking at what happens to us ourselves and discussing experience. That is how bodybuilding has actually managed to stay ahead of science in many areas.

We can use studies to aid us in learning, but making up results to fill in the gaps is scientifically disingenuous.

139

Studies that do not have perfect parameters for the population we are discussing can be used to extrapolate into the population we are discussing. It doesn’t make it a perfect science, it doesn’t make it a scientific law, but to dismiss it as being completely not relevant is a little foolish, IMO.

140

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Studies that do not have perfect parameters for the population we are discussing can be used to extrapolate into the population we are discussing. It doesn’t make it a perfect science, it doesn’t make it a scientific law, but to dismiss it as being completely not relevant is a little foolish, IMO. [/quote]

We aren’t trying to make it PERFECT. Look, I deal with studies daily so when people act like this, it bothers me a little.

We aren’t talking about small differences here. UNtrained people and TRAINED people are completely different populations.

SERIOUS BODYBUILDERS take it a step further with almost daily training which would logically skew results even more.

That means the WORSE place to get data that applies directly to that population is a study on untrained people.

Once again, it was implied here that someone enhances their insulin resistance simply by being leaner…which again has no basis in science.

If you are 15%…will your insulin resistance be better at 14%? There is NOTHING implying as such in any study I have seen.

Therefore, stop making connections just because you want there to be some.