Wouldn’t the body also have a set point for maintaining a certain level of bodyfat? If not a percent, an absolute quantity. That way there’s always a known amount of reserve fat to be used in times of perceived starvation.
That seems more useful in a biological/evolutionary sense than having a set point based purely on bodyweight.
Why would you question the source than? Genuinely curious
[quote]Bauber wrote:
I am starting a twinkie diet. I hear the new ones have less calories, fat, and carbs. Bulking up my BF to a comfortable 50%.[/quote]
I am continuing with my cereal and ice cream diet
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Wouldn’t the body also have a set point for maintaining a certain level of bodyfat? If not a percent, an absolute quantity. That way there’s always a known amount of reserve fat to be used in times of perceived starvation.
That seems more useful in a biological/evolutionary sense than having a set point based purely on bodyweight.[/quote]
I would make the statement more as “the human body reaches points of homeostatic stability in different stages of CONDITIONING at different BODY WEIGHTS”.
In other words, your body may reach a point where having no visible abs at 260lbs is “normal” even if you have muscle on you.
To change that would take a change in overall conditioning and the gain of more muscle in the long run.
No, it does not just relate to body fat but muscle as well because this is about the WHOLE CONDITION of an organism.
A bodybuilder doing what was written by Starnes would understand that his long term goal would be to hit that 260 with much more muscle mass by getting the body to adapt and adjust conditioning at that same body weight.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Why would you question the source than? Genuinely curious[/quote]
Why would we question a source?
Because people lie?
That is why it is best to get you info from many sources and NOT just one or to attain a legit education in the subject.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Why would you question the source than? Genuinely curious[/quote]
Why would we question a source?
Because people lie?
That is why it is best to get you info from many sources and NOT just one or to attain a legit education in the subject.
[/quote]
I am confused the articles I am reffering to are written by some incredibly knowledgable people and have plenty of cited references rather than a tnation article that has no references what so ever and is strictly an opinion. Albeit from Shelby who is a smart man
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Wouldn’t the body also have a set point for maintaining a certain level of bodyfat? If not a percent, an absolute quantity. That way there’s always a known amount of reserve fat to be used in times of perceived starvation.
That seems more useful in a biological/evolutionary sense than having a set point based purely on bodyweight.[/quote]
I would make the statement more as “the human body reaches points of homeostatic stability in different stages of CONDITIONING at different BODY WEIGHTS”.
In other words, your body may reach a point where having no visible abs at 260lbs is “normal” even if you have muscle on you.
To change that would take a change in overall conditioning and the gain of more muscle in the long run.
No, it does not just relate to body fat but muscle as well because this is about the WHOLE CONDITION of an organism.
A bodybuilder doing what was written by Starnes would understand that his long term goal would be to hit that 260 with much more muscle mass by getting the body to adapt and adjust conditioning at that same body weight.[/quote]
You confused me with how you phrased things.
But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.
And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.
Did I understand that correctly?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
You confused me with how you phrased things.
But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.
And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.
Did I understand that correctly?[/quote]
Get rid of the specific numbers and for the most part yes, this is about LONG TERM progress and how the body adapts OVER TIME.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
You confused me with how you phrased things.
But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.
And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.
Did I understand that correctly?[/quote]
Get rid of the specific numbers and for the most part yes, this is about LONG TERM progress and how the body adapts OVER TIME.[/quote]
Can I ask what you are basing that statement on? As in what information are you using to formulate that opinion.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
You confused me with how you phrased things.
But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.
And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.
Did I understand that correctly?[/quote]
Get rid of the specific numbers and for the most part yes, this is about LONG TERM progress and how the body adapts OVER TIME.[/quote]
Can I ask what you are basing that statement on? As in what information are you using to formulate that opinion. [/quote]
Personal experience and clinical education in biology.
I have seen it happen in myself and others and what I know of the human body supports this until I see something that refutes it.
That is what science is.
Do you ask Starnes the same question?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
Wouldn’t the body also have a set point for maintaining a certain level of bodyfat? If not a percent, an absolute quantity. That way there’s always a known amount of reserve fat to be used in times of perceived starvation.
That seems more useful in a biological/evolutionary sense than having a set point based purely on bodyweight.[/quote]
I would make the statement more as “the human body reaches points of homeostatic stability in different stages of CONDITIONING at different BODY WEIGHTS”.
In other words, your body may reach a point where having no visible abs at 260lbs is “normal” even if you have muscle on you.
To change that would take a change in overall conditioning and the gain of more muscle in the long run.
No, it does not just relate to body fat but muscle as well because this is about the WHOLE CONDITION of an organism.
A bodybuilder doing what was written by Starnes would understand that his long term goal would be to hit that 260 with much more muscle mass by getting the body to adapt and adjust conditioning at that same body weight.[/quote]
This was some confusing writing but this statment stuck out that conditioning becomes homeostasis after a long time. In my mind then that would mean becoming fat ie losing your abs and piling on body fat as well as muscle will make it harder to get and stay lean since the organism now sees that condition that you held as the norm
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
This was some confusing writing but this statment stuck out that conditioning becomes homeostasis after a long time. In my mind then that would mean becoming fat ie losing your abs and piling on body fat as well as muscle will make it harder to get and stay lean since the organism now sees that condition that you held as the norm[/quote]
Yes, and if our biology was that limited we would have died off thousands of years ago.
That is why we acknowledge that the body adapts…and not just in one direction.
That is why you will read of many trainers telling those who were heavier to hold their dieted down weight for a while before gaining large amounts of body weight…to create that new set point.
While it is difficult to actually refute the conjecture of extending the set point theory idea to other things like fat, I would like to see some actual EVIDENCE.
And no, your N=1 experience is not gonna convince me. Especially, if it comes from someone who is terrible at tracking his own progress/body composition objectively.
Also, I recall asking Shelby about the whole set point idea while I worked with him some time ago and he actually wasn’t too big about it. So much for that.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
You confused me with how you phrased things.
But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.
And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.
Did I understand that correctly?[/quote]
Get rid of the specific numbers and for the most part yes, this is about LONG TERM progress and how the body adapts OVER TIME.[/quote]
Can I ask what you are basing that statement on? As in what information are you using to formulate that opinion. [/quote]
Personal experience and clinical education in biology.
I have seen it happen in myself and others and what I know of the human body supports this until I see something that refutes it.
That is what science is.
Do you ask Starnes the same question?
[/quote]
I ask a simple question and you get defensive, hostile and snarky.
Interesting.
Thank you for explaining to me that the definition of science is your personal opinion and anecdotal experience combined with you not being convinced of the opposite. I must have had it all wrong.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
This was some confusing writing but this statment stuck out that conditioning becomes homeostasis after a long time. In my mind then that would mean becoming fat ie losing your abs and piling on body fat as well as muscle will make it harder to get and stay lean since the organism now sees that condition that you held as the norm[/quote]
Yes, and if our biology was that limited we would have died off thousands of years ago.
That is why we acknowledge that the body adapts…and not just in one direction.
That is why you will read of many trainers telling those who were heavier to hold their dieted down weight for a while before gaining large amounts of body weight…to create that new set point.
[/quote]
My point is holding that high weight and high fat composition will make that cut very hrd that is all I said. Which in my mind supports staying a bit leaner while obtaining that higher weight so your body doesn’t start to adapt to being fat
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
This was some confusing writing but this statment stuck out that conditioning becomes homeostasis after a long time. In my mind then that would mean becoming fat ie losing your abs and piling on body fat as well as muscle will make it harder to get and stay lean since the organism now sees that condition that you held as the norm[/quote]
Yes, and if our biology was that limited we would have died off thousands of years ago.
That is why we acknowledge that the body adapts…and not just in one direction.
That is why you will read of many trainers telling those who were heavier to hold their dieted down weight for a while before gaining large amounts of body weight…to create that new set point.
[/quote]
My point is holding that high weight and high fat composition will make that cut very hrd that is all I said. Which in my mind supports staying a bit leaner while obtaining that higher weight so your body doesn’t start to adapt to being fat [/quote]
This is what I was getting at. If you’ve spent a long time chasing scale weight and all out size without ever really reigning it in, leaning up will be a beast. And, the longer you spend at a certain “stage”, the more your body begins to accept that as normal.
I also don’t understand why one would quote an author to “prove” his point then chastise others as “fanboys” when they talk of doing the same.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
My point is holding that high weight and high fat composition will make that cut very hrd that is all I said.[/quote]
You don’t know this. That would depend on how lean someone is trying to get and their personal metabolism among other things.
You can not make a blanket statement that it makes it harder to lose body fat.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
You confused me with how you phrased things.
But if I understood you right, basically you’re saying that if you want to be 260 with visible abs, you first have to get to the point where you’re 260 with visible abs… and then find a way to stay there for awhile so that your body can establish homeostasis at that weight and conditioning.
And if you don’t give it enough time, forcing it to maintain the new state, your body will revert to a previous state, both in terms of bodyfat and bodyweight.
Did I understand that correctly?[/quote]
Get rid of the specific numbers and for the most part yes, this is about LONG TERM progress and how the body adapts OVER TIME.[/quote]
Can I ask what you are basing that statement on? As in what information are you using to formulate that opinion. [/quote]
Personal experience and clinical education in biology.
I have seen it happen in myself and others and what I know of the human body supports this until I see something that refutes it.
That is what science is.
Do you ask Starnes the same question?
[/quote]
I ask a simple question and you get defensive, hostile and snarky.
Interesting.
Thank you for explaining to me that the definition of science is your personal opinion and anecdotal experience combined with you not being convinced of the opposite. I must have had it all wrong.
[/quote]
There was nothing defensive, hostile or “snarky” in that response.
I answered your question and asked one…which you refused to answer.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Also, I recall asking Shelby about the whole set point idea while I worked with him some time ago and he actually wasn’t too big about it. So much for that.[/quote]
Case in point of name dropping.
No quotes…just “so and so agrees with me so there!”.
Interesting.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
My point is holding that high weight and high fat composition will make that cut very hrd that is all I said.[/quote]
You don’t know this. That would depend on how lean someone is trying to get and their personal metabolism among other things.
You can not make a blanket statement that it makes it harder to lose body fat.
[/quote]
Now you aren’t agreeing with your own quote you confidently edited out