'Full House' ???

Training
141

[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]
The problem is that the study given isn’t even close. Not close.

First, the population is different than the population we are talking about.

Second, BMI is not a measure of body fat.

If this study measured body fat vs insulin sensitivity and showed the same results then you could maybe, try and extrapolate them to a more broad population. However, the study doesn’t do that, nor does it try to do it. I am very confident that the researchers that did this study would not attempt to claim that body fat and insulin levels should be extrapolated out of this data. If they wanted to do this, they would have tested body fat instead of bmi.

142

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

[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]
The problem is that the study given isn’t even close. Not close.

First, the population is different than the population we are talking about.

Second, BMI is not a measure of body fat.

If this study measured body fat vs insulin sensitivity and showed the same results then you could maybe, try and extrapolate them to a more broad population. However, the study doesn’t do that, nor does it try to do it. I am very confident that the researchers that did this study would not attempt to claim that body fat and insulin levels should be extrapolated out of this data. If they wanted to do this, they would have tested body fat instead of bmi.[/quote]

Many studies use BMI as basically a representation of bodyfat because it’s a much cheaper and easier thing to measure. On an individual basis it is shite, but when looking at a large population, the people with the higher BMI will generally have more bodyfat, so they often do try to extrapolate it in that way.

If the study was done on bodybuilders, or athletes, then yes BMI would be a terrible indicator of bodyfat, but it’s done on a regular healthy population, so it’s not a far stretch. I think it’s more the fact that it was done on regular people, and not bodybuilders, that does make it harder to extrapolate. But that doesn’t mean we should dismiss and ignore it, as lanky pointed out.

143

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

[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]
The problem is that the study given isn’t even close. Not close.

First, the population is different than the population we are talking about.

Second, BMI is not a measure of body fat.

If this study measured body fat vs insulin sensitivity and showed the same results then you could maybe, try and extrapolate them to a more broad population. However, the study doesn’t do that, nor does it try to do it. I am very confident that the researchers that did this study would not attempt to claim that body fat and insulin levels should be extrapolated out of this data. If they wanted to do this, they would have tested body fat instead of bmi.[/quote]

Many studies use BMI as basically a representation of bodyfat because it’s a much cheaper and easier thing to measure. On an individual basis it is shite, but when looking at a large population, the people with the higher BMI will generally have more bodyfat, so they often do try to extrapolate it in that way.

If the study was done on bodybuilders, or athletes, then yes BMI would be a terrible indicator of bodyfat, but it’s done on a regular healthy population, so it’s not a far stretch. I think it’s more the fact that it was done on regular people, and not bodybuilders, that does make it harder to extrapolate. But that doesn’t mean we should dismiss and ignore it, as lanky pointed out.[/quote]

When it was developed, it wasn’t even meant as a measure of body composition. It was actually developed by insurance companies to quickly evaluate the risk of heart disease in clients without having them do a full medical.

From there they invented the “healthy weight” scale which was eventually stolen by the exercise science field.

144

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

[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]
The problem is that the study given isn’t even close. Not close.

First, the population is different than the population we are talking about.

Second, BMI is not a measure of body fat.

If this study measured body fat vs insulin sensitivity and showed the same results then you could maybe, try and extrapolate them to a more broad population. However, the study doesn’t do that, nor does it try to do it. I am very confident that the researchers that did this study would not attempt to claim that body fat and insulin levels should be extrapolated out of this data. If they wanted to do this, they would have tested body fat instead of bmi.[/quote]

Many studies use BMI as basically a representation of bodyfat because it’s a much cheaper and easier thing to measure. On an individual basis it is shite, but when looking at a large population, the people with the higher BMI will generally have more bodyfat, so they often do try to extrapolate it in that way.

If the study was done on bodybuilders, or athletes, then yes BMI would be a terrible indicator of bodyfat, but it’s done on a regular healthy population, so it’s not a far stretch. I think it’s more the fact that it was done on regular people, and not bodybuilders, that does make it harder to extrapolate. But that doesn’t mean we should dismiss and ignore it, as lanky pointed out.[/quote]

When it was developed, it wasn’t even meant as a measure of body composition. It was actually developed by insurance companies to quickly evaluate the risk of heart disease in clients without having them do a full medical.

From there they invented the “healthy weight” scale which was eventually stolen by the exercise science field.[/quote]

Agreed.

BMI is nothing but a way to look at a HUGE population and “guess scientifically” how many of those people are fat.

Nothing more, nothing less. Do not use BMI as a direct relation to body fat.

145

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Gmoore17 wrote:

[quote]americaninsweden wrote:

[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]
The problem is that the study given isn’t even close. Not close.

First, the population is different than the population we are talking about.

Second, BMI is not a measure of body fat.

If this study measured body fat vs insulin sensitivity and showed the same results then you could maybe, try and extrapolate them to a more broad population. However, the study doesn’t do that, nor does it try to do it. I am very confident that the researchers that did this study would not attempt to claim that body fat and insulin levels should be extrapolated out of this data. If they wanted to do this, they would have tested body fat instead of bmi.[/quote]

Many studies use BMI as basically a representation of bodyfat because it’s a much cheaper and easier thing to measure. On an individual basis it is shite, but when looking at a large population, the people with the higher BMI will generally have more bodyfat, so they often do try to extrapolate it in that way.

If the study was done on bodybuilders, or athletes, then yes BMI would be a terrible indicator of bodyfat, but it’s done on a regular healthy population, so it’s not a far stretch. I think it’s more the fact that it was done on regular people, and not bodybuilders, that does make it harder to extrapolate. But that doesn’t mean we should dismiss and ignore it, as lanky pointed out.[/quote]

When it was developed, it wasn’t even meant as a measure of body composition. It was actually developed by insurance companies to quickly evaluate the risk of heart disease in clients without having them do a full medical.

From there they invented the “healthy weight” scale which was eventually stolen by the exercise science field.[/quote]

The reason insurance companies created it was because it has some degree of accuracy among the large population when evaluating heart disease risk, which is directly related to body weight in the general population. I agree the study isn’t perfect, but dismissing it is equally ridiculous as claiming it is perfect.

Furthermore, there are several individuals in this thread, including a pro bodybuilder sharing anecdotal experiences that their insulin sensitivity is better while being leaner. While this is not scientific fact, people in this thread have said that bodybuilding has remained ahead of science in some areas in part due to these types of body experiments that get performed in gyms across the country.

If all of this isn’t enough evidence to cause one to consider the possibility that the correlation between body fat and insulin sensitivity is legitimate, well then I don’t know. But the last thing people should be doing are claiming it isn’t correlated because it hasn’t been proven by a study.

146

[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]

Agreed. I know exactly where you are coming from. However in regard to what Professor X is asking, it is difficult to approximate bodyfat to studies using BMI when the differences in the bodyfat percentages in question are too close together. The insulin levels of someone at 12% bf and then at 15% could be statistically irrelevant over the time it takes to get from one percentage to the other, or be so scattered as to not show a measurable change.

The study on BMI and its relation to insulin resistance is useful for the reasons you brought up. Like many papers using BMI it shows measurable differences between groups, but what Professor X is asking for are studies showing measurable differences within the same group, and secondly whether those (small) differences are enough to warrant a change in training.

Like DoubleDuce I believe “its a continuum”, but its on the individual to determine at what point their bodyfat levels become a hindrance to a goal.

147

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Doesn’t really matter what YOU’Ve seen through testing though. As someone else pointed out, we can ever “test” whether or not you can obtain MORE mass by keeping a higher body weight, but some here feel that it certainly is the case. No tests, but the evidence is there, FOR THEM. This issue is NO DIFFERENT.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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?[/quote]

Never said “full house” means above 20%. I’m speaking of ANYBODY who has posted seeing signs of greater insulin sensitivity at a moderately lower BF % THAN THEY WERE AT BEFORE. Doesn’t really matter “what their numbers were”.

148

[quote]fncj wrote:

[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]

Agreed. I know exactly where you are coming from. However in regard to what Professor X is asking, it is difficult to approximate bodyfat to studies using BMI when the differences in the bodyfat percentages in question are too close together. The insulin levels of someone at 12% bf and then at 15% could be statistically irrelevant over the time it takes to get from one percentage to the other, or be so scattered as to not show a measurable change.

The study on BMI and its relation to insulin resistance is useful for the reasons you brought up. Like many papers using BMI it shows measurable differences between groups, but what Professor X is asking for are studies showing measurable differences within the same group, and secondly whether those (small) differences are enough to warrant a change in training.

Like DoubleDuce I believe “its a continuum”, but its on the individual to determine at what point their bodyfat levels become a hindrance to a goal.[/quote]

The small bodyfat percentage changes was something X threw in, I never brought them up. I am talking about more significant changes.

And again, I noted my own personal fasting glucose level as evidence that it does change within the individual.

149

[quote]fncj wrote:

[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]

Agreed. I know exactly where you are coming from. However in regard to what Professor X is asking, it is difficult to approximate bodyfat to studies using BMI when the differences in the bodyfat percentages in question are too close together. The insulin levels of someone at 12% bf and then at 15% could be statistically irrelevant over the time it takes to get from one percentage to the other, or be so scattered as to not show a measurable change.

The study on BMI and its relation to insulin resistance is useful for the reasons you brought up. Like many papers using BMI it shows measurable differences between groups, but what Professor X is asking for are studies showing measurable differences within the same group, and secondly whether those (small) differences are enough to warrant a change in training.

Like DoubleDuce I believe “its a continuum”, but its on the individual to determine at what point their bodyfat levels become a hindrance to a goal.[/quote]

Good post and no disagreement.

Edit - and I think it behooves a lot of these “full house” guys to at least try gaining muscle at an appreciable rate while being at leaner levels, actually moving to different “groups”, as you’ve labeled them.

Again, I don’t think it’s the same for everyone, nor do I think a universal law applies, but I see it being dismissed for all the wrong reasons.

150

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The small bodyfat percentage changes was something X threw in, I never brought them up. I am talking about more significant changes.

And again, I noted my own personal fasting glucose level as evidence that it does change within the individual. [/quote]

?? “more significant changes”? Look, if you are still discussing going from OBESE to not obese, then yes, I am sure you saw a difference.

Most studies seem to imply that.

However, once again, we are not discussing obesity in this discussion.

Unless you were “just a little bit fatter” or at least within 10% of where you are now at the start, your results aren’t what we are discussing.

151

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

And that is exactly what is being discussed right here in this thread. People looking at what happens to them and discussing their experience.

You postulate about being able to gain MORE mass at a slightly higher BF% than others as it HAS WORKED FOR YOU. You have no study to back up that claim, yet still discuss it and purport it’s truth. No different than what is happening here.

152

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The small bodyfat percentage changes was something X threw in, I never brought them up. I am talking about more significant changes.

And again, I noted my own personal fasting glucose level as evidence that it does change within the individual. [/quote]

?? “more significant changes”? Look, if you are still discussing going from OBESE to not obese, then yes, I am sure you saw a difference.

Most studies seem to imply that.

However, once again, we are not discussing obesity in this discussion.

Unless you were “just a little bit fatter” or at least within 10% of where you are now at the start, your results aren’t what we are discussing.[/quote]

Many of the guys mentioned could easily stand to lose 15% or more. 15% on a 300 pounder is 45+ pounds. Hell, even 10% (which probably wouldn’t get many of these guys close to lean) would be 30 pounds of fat loss. That is a Significant chunk of fat.

You act like obese and muscular are mutually exclusive. Though many of these guys look good, yes, some are in fact fat.

153

[quote]cueball wrote:

And that is exactly what is being discussed right here in this thread. People looking at what happens to them and discussing their experience.[/quote]

Are you able to “look” and judge your blood levels of insulin?

154

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Many of the guys mentioned could easily stand to lose 15% or more. 15% on a 300 pounder is 45+ pounds. Hell, even 10% (which probably wouldn’t get many of these guys close to lean) would be 30 pounds of fat loss. That is a Significant chunk of fat.

You act like obese and muscular are mutually exclusive. Though many of these guys look good, yes, some are in fact fat.
[/quote]

? Obesity is defined as 30% body fat and above in most areas. I don’t see anyone with body fat that high being judged as “full house”.

once again, how did you look when fatter? Please post pictures.

155

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

And that is exactly what is being discussed right here in this thread. People looking at what happens to them and discussing their experience.[/quote]

Are you able to “look” and judge your blood levels of insulin?

[/quote]

Are you? you keep making these insulin sensitive and healthy claims about training. Studies please.

156

Seems a little short sighted to ignore the study Dr Pangloss posted. It’s not perfect, but it definitely gives food for thought.

Would be interesting if they did do a study on a weight training population so we could see the effect of weight training on insulin resistance, then we could compare the two population groups.

Interesting stuff. I personally think that the study by Dr P, plus the anecdotal evidence in this thread is enough to convince me that insulin resistance does exist on a spectrum, with lean people and fat people being on opposite ends.

Does a big muscular guy who rocks the “full house” need to worry about insulin resistance? Probably not providing he’s training hard, which we’ll assume he is if he’s gotten big in the first place (but there has to be a point where carrying fat will do more harm than good, call it brosceince if you will but ti just seems like common sense to me). The semantics of “full house” seem to be in question though, as some people consider it to be fatter than others. Would this full house bodybuilder example be better primed to build muscle and not store as much fat if he got leaner and improved his insulin sensitivity? Probably, but the question that we have no answer to is “how much?”. I wonder if going from 20% bodyfat to 15% bodyfat would really be all that significant.

interesting topic though. I think we’ve strayed quite a bit past the “why would anyone prefer the full house look?” original purpose of the thread, but there has been some interesting stuff posted.

157

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Many of the guys mentioned could easily stand to lose 15% or more. 15% on a 300 pounder is 45+ pounds. Hell, even 10% (which probably wouldn’t get many of these guys close to lean) would be 30 pounds of fat loss. That is a Significant chunk of fat.

You act like obese and muscular are mutually exclusive. Though many of these guys look good, yes, some are in fact fat.
[/quote]

? Obesity is defined as 30% body fat and above in most areas. I don’t see anyone with body fat that high being judged as “full house”.

once again, how did you look when fatter? Please post pictures.[/quote]

Okay, yes, some of these folks are over 30%.

BUT I need a study that shows you have to get to 30% to become insulin resistant. And that if you stay under that, it doesn’t happen.

And I’ve posted pics. But I’ll post them here just as soon as you do.

158

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
Seems a little short sighted to ignore the study Dr Pangloss posted. It’s not perfect, but it definitely gives food for thought.

Would be interesting if they did do a study on a weight training population so we could see the effect of weight training on insulin resistance, then we could compare the two population groups.

Interesting stuff. I personally think that the study by Dr P, plus the anecdotal evidence in this thread is enough to convince me that insulin resistance does exist on a spectrum, with lean people and fat people being on opposite ends.

Does a big muscular guy who rocks the “full house” need to worry about insulin resistance? Probably not providing he’s training hard, which we’ll assume he is if he’s gotten big in the first place (but there has to be a point where carrying fat will do more harm than good, call it brosceince if you will but ti just seems like common sense to me). The semantics of “full house” seem to be in question though, as some people consider it to be fatter than others. Would this full house bodybuilder example be better primed to build muscle and not store as much fat if he got leaner and improved his insulin sensitivity? Probably, but the question that we have no answer to is “how much?”. I wonder if going from 20% bodyfat to 15% bodyfat would really be all that significant.

interesting topic though. I think we’ve strayed quite a bit past the “why would anyone prefer the full house look?” original purpose of the thread, but there has been some interesting stuff posted.

[/quote]

Seriously, great summary and my thoughts exactly.

159

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

And that is exactly what is being discussed right here in this thread. People looking at what happens to them and discussing their experience.[/quote]

Are you able to “look” and judge your blood levels of insulin?

[/quote]

Are you? you keep making these insulin sensitive and healthy claims about training. Studies please. [/quote]

No, I’m not…which is the point of this discussion.

I would never make a claim like that.

160

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Many of the guys mentioned could easily stand to lose 15% or more. 15% on a 300 pounder is 45+ pounds. Hell, even 10% (which probably wouldn’t get many of these guys close to lean) would be 30 pounds of fat loss. That is a Significant chunk of fat.

You act like obese and muscular are mutually exclusive. Though many of these guys look good, yes, some are in fact fat.
[/quote]

? Obesity is defined as 30% body fat and above in most areas. I don’t see anyone with body fat that high being judged as “full house”.

once again, how did you look when fatter? Please post pictures.[/quote]

Okay, yes, some of these folks are over 30%.

BUT I need a study that shows you have to get to 30% to become insulin resistant. And that if you stay under that, it doesn’t happen.

And I’ve posted pics. But I’ll post them here just as soon as you do. [/quote]

?? My pics are everywhere with my own log in the Indigo forum.

I have also posted pics with me at 285 with my shirt off. That is the one they said had too many shadows.

Simply put, there is nothing showing that simply being leaner at all aids your “insulin resistance”…like was stated in this thread.