[quote]mbdix wrote:
Why doesn’t the body limit how much fat a person can gain rather than muscle?
[/quote]
Never thought about it like that… But it doesnt seem fair does it? Gain ~30 muscle max… verus you can get infinitely fat basically. Lol, pretty shitty scenario for us.[/quote]
Yeah, I’m sure if someone proposed a limit on possible body fat gain, we’d have plenty of people chiming in on how they’ve blown past such nonsense -lol.
S[/quote]
LOL. Also, if someone proposed a limit on fat gain we would have far more evidence to say it is false. Yet in the muscle building limit theory I have yet to see evidence to disprove the theory.
[quote]mbdix wrote:
Why doesn’t the body limit how much fat a person can gain rather than muscle?
[/quote]
Never thought about it like that… But it doesnt seem fair does it? Gain ~30 muscle max… verus you can get infinitely fat basically. Lol, pretty shitty scenario for us.[/quote]
Yeah, I’m sure if someone proposed a limit on possible body fat gain, we’d have plenty of people chiming in on how they’ve blown past such nonsense -lol.
My understanding is that the amount of testosterone a person produces is what sets these limits. Testosterone is mainly what tells the body to grow muscle. It binds to receptors in the muscle - these receptors then trigger a process wherein a muscle fiber that has been damaged from lifting weights is rebuilt into a bigger, stronger fiber.
At some point there isn’t enough testosterone to bind to the outermost muscle fibers to tell them to grow. This is just a theory but it seems to make sense to me. It also explains why gains are harder and harder to come by when you have more muscle. And also why people on steroids can get way bigger (extra testosterone).
[quote]Aopocetx wrote:
My understanding is that the amount of testosterone a person produces is what sets these limits. Testosterone is mainly what tells the body to grow muscle. It binds to receptors in the muscle - these receptors then trigger a process wherein a muscle fiber that has been damaged from lifting weights is rebuilt into a bigger, stronger fiber.
At some point there isn’t enough testosterone to bind to the outermost muscle fibers to tell them to grow. This is just a theory but it seems to make sense to me. It also explains why gains are harder and harder to come by when you have more muscle. And also why people on steroids can get way bigger (extra testosterone).[/quote]
Yes, one of he main reasons. The males testicles produce 7 to 10 mg of T per day; that’s 49 to 70 mg per week. Compare this with the doses of T some BBers take and one can see how it’s a whole different ballgame.
[quote]Aopocetx wrote:
My understanding is that the amount of testosterone a person produces is what sets these limits. Testosterone is mainly what tells the body to grow muscle. It binds to receptors in the muscle - these receptors then trigger a process wherein a muscle fiber that has been damaged from lifting weights is rebuilt into a bigger, stronger fiber.
At some point there isn’t enough testosterone to bind to the outermost muscle fibers to tell them to grow. This is just a theory but it seems to make sense to me. It also explains why gains are harder and harder to come by when you have more muscle. And also why people on steroids can get way bigger (extra testosterone).[/quote]
Yes, one of he main reasons. The males testicles produce 7 to 10 mg of T per day; that’s 49 to 70 mg per week. Compare this with the doses of T some BBers take and one can see how it’s a whole different ballgame. [/quote]
Even the recreational low dosers have many, many times higher than any natty man ever will.
[quote]Aopocetx wrote:
My understanding is that the amount of testosterone a person produces is what sets these limits. Testosterone is mainly what tells the body to grow muscle. It binds to receptors in the muscle - these receptors then trigger a process wherein a muscle fiber that has been damaged from lifting weights is rebuilt into a bigger, stronger fiber.
At some point there isn’t enough testosterone to bind to the outermost muscle fibers to tell them to grow. This is just a theory but it seems to make sense to me. It also explains why gains are harder and harder to come by when you have more muscle. And also why people on steroids can get way bigger (extra testosterone).[/quote]
Yes, one of he main reasons. The males testicles produce 7 to 10 mg of T per day; that’s 49 to 70 mg per week. Compare this with the doses of T some BBers take and one can see how it’s a whole different ballgame. [/quote]
Even the recreational low dosers have many, many times higher than any natty man ever will.[/quote]
Maybe.
Fantastic thread Stu. It’s great to have all of that research and information in one spot. I’ve seen a few of those formulas before and they seem to be quite fair. I suppose we have plenty of data to draw from of course, so why shouldn’t they be? It may be slightly demoralizing to a newer lifter reading those formulas, but life isn’t fair, huh.
[quote]Aopocetx wrote:
My understanding is that the amount of testosterone a person produces is what sets these limits. Testosterone is mainly what tells the body to grow muscle. It binds to receptors in the muscle - these receptors then trigger a process wherein a muscle fiber that has been damaged from lifting weights is rebuilt into a bigger, stronger fiber.
At some point there isn’t enough testosterone to bind to the outermost muscle fibers to tell them to grow. This is just a theory but it seems to make sense to me. It also explains why gains are harder and harder to come by when you have more muscle. And also why people on steroids can get way bigger (extra testosterone).[/quote]
Building muscle is certainly a big part of it; retaining muscle at a low bodyfat % is another big part. Testosterone alone wouldn’t bring a BBer close to the condition (size & leanness) of today’s Pros, honestly. If it did, I think men who are on test replacement therapy would be a whole lot bigger. To get real freaky, you gotta use more than one substance. Slippery slope…
Whenever people want to bitch about how low some of these reasonable numerical limits (lbm, measurements, etc.) sound, they should be forced to look at pictures/vids of Cordova.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Whenever people want to bitch about how low some of these reasonable numerical limits (lbm, measurements, etc.) sound, they should be forced to look at pictures/vids of Cordova.[/quote]
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Whenever people want to bitch about how low some of these reasonable numerical limits (lbm, measurements, etc.) sound, they should be forced to look at pictures/vids of Cordova.[/quote]
…
you cant be this naif can you?[/quote]
What’s a naif?
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Whenever people want to bitch about how low some of these reasonable numerical limits (lbm, measurements, etc.) sound, they should be forced to look at pictures/vids of Cordova.[/quote]
…
you cant be this naif can you?[/quote]
What’s a naif?[/quote]
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Whenever people want to bitch about how low some of these reasonable numerical limits (lbm, measurements, etc.) sound, they should be forced to look at pictures/vids of Cordova.[/quote]
…
you cant be this naif can you?[/quote]
What’s a naif?[/quote]
Naive with a french accent? [/quote]
Evidently it’s literally the French word for naive.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Whenever people want to bitch about how low some of these reasonable numerical limits (lbm, measurements, etc.) sound, they should be forced to look at pictures/vids of Cordova.[/quote]
…
you cant be this naif can you?[/quote]
What’s a naif?[/quote]
Naive with a french accent? [/quote]
Evidently it’s literally the French word for naive.[/quote]
GTFO FRENCHIE
That ronald1919 guy is the biggest BB troll on this site (if I’m thinking of the right person)
His only comments are making ridiculous statements about steroids.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Whenever people want to bitch about how low some of these reasonable numerical limits (lbm, measurements, etc.) sound, they should be forced to look at pictures/vids of Cordova.[/quote]
…
you cant be this naif can you?[/quote]
What’s a naif?[/quote]
Naive with a french accent? [/quote]
Evidently it’s literally the French word for naive.[/quote]
GTFO FRENCHIE
That ronald1919 guy is the biggest BB troll on this site (if I’m thinking of the right person)
His only comments are making ridiculous statements about steroids.[/quote]
Isn’t he the one that said Bauber didn’t look over 230 which resulted in Bauber filming a weighing session at 300?
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
Whenever people want to bitch about how low some of these reasonable numerical limits (lbm, measurements, etc.) sound, they should be forced to look at pictures/vids of Cordova.[/quote]
…
you cant be this naif can you?[/quote]
What’s a naif?[/quote]
Naive with a french accent? [/quote]
Evidently it’s literally the French word for naive.[/quote]
GTFO FRENCHIE
That ronald1919 guy is the biggest BB troll on this site (if I’m thinking of the right person)
His only comments are making ridiculous statements about steroids.[/quote]
Isn’t he the one that said Bauber didn’t look over 230 which resulted in Bauber filming a weighing session at 300? [/quote]
Hahaha could be? I missed that thread. I’m pretty sure he just trolls BB threads and makes comments about being too big and using too many roidz and blah blah blah.
[quote]VTPower wrote:
Building muscle is certainly a big part of it; retaining muscle at a low bodyfat % is another big part. [/quote]
Yeah exactly. I forgot to mention that part.[/quote]
Preface, where I’m saying do and don’t I’m speaking only of my personal experience, I don’t mean to be setting out absolute laws.
I think this is where the “lean body mass” versus “muscle” gets confusing. Unless you are going to extremes and not being very careful, I don’t think you really loose much muscle cutting.
There are some things that confuse the issue though.
First, you certainly can lose strength (and even muscle volume) in later stages, but largely due to energy/caloric restriction/low glycogen not muscle loss. I find that when you again up calories, lost strength returns long before there is a drastic impact on bodyweight. You canâ??t judge your comparative strength and fullness in a depleted state, it isn’t a fair comparison.
Second, and more confusingly, you will many times lose lean body mass, but a decrease in LBM doesn’t mean you lose muscle. For example, blood is LBM and if you drop fat while maintaining every ounce of muscle, your body will still naturally reduce total blood volume to maintain the blood pressure it wants (or you’d die). And there is the real rub. You really shouldn’t care about blood volume lost in this way, but if you are focusing on LBM numbers, you are. You could as easily (temporarily) add LBM by blood doping like cyclists do, or eating a shit ton of salt and bloating yourself with fluid, but why the hell would you? But again, you are doing the same thing adding a bunch of fat to get your LBM number up. I think that if you start cutting (in a educated manner) and you end up smaller than your initial LBM would indicate, you really just had less muscle than you thought you did.
[quote]csulli wrote:
Jesus this thread is depressing.[/quote]
What’s depressing big man?[/quote]
Apparently I’m fuckin done lol. For my height and measurements I may as well cut down to like 180 or 175 or something, which would be a really nice level of leanness for me and just wait until I feel like doing da sterons.
I’m not even being facetious. This has convinced me that for a 5’9", truly natty dude, you only have a snowball’s chance in hell of being lean and over 200lbs at the same time.
It may be slightly demoralizing to a newer lifter reading those formulas, but life isn’t fair, huh.