The Body Weight Factor 2

Training
381

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
X, I really try to stay out of these things.

But you need to realize, you are coming at this discussion as someone saying “I want to be a huge strong-ass mofo” as an end-goal, yes? For starters, you simply aren’t going to get the same respect with that sort of non-definable goal as an aspiring bodybuilder, powerlifter, strongman, oly lifter, football player, etc will get. They can say “I won this BBing comp” or “I made the NFL” and point out the goals, with concrete evidence that they accomplished them.

You, with your vague goals, can only relay stories of times when various people said “hey that man looks big”. Not the same, not even comparable, unless you actually end up looking TRULY ridiculous. You haven’t dieted down, you haven’t even posted a single front double bicep sans shirt. You say things like “Well at 300 lbs I looked like a powerlifter”, but I don’t see your elite total to back that up. When’s the last time you squatted 2x bodyweight or more for reps?

So aside from these anecdotes of “The cashier thought I looked strong”, what do you have to PROVE you are someone to be listened to? I have a couple elite powerlifting totals, a pretty good physique, and that while serving active duty USMC and supporting a family. I manage to just about ALWAYS give people polite advice regarding training/diet questions, and not just vague “Eat more burgers” advice, but stuff that’s actually relevant. Same goes for people like Stu, Maiden, and too many more to mention. These are people that have competed, they have proved their mettle through definable means.

Your ability to blame the world while holding yourself as the sole shining pillar of true knowledge, the persecuted, is disgusting. I’ve had WAY too much experience with one particular delusional person recently (She’s a felon fwiw), and the similarity in your logic is disturbing. Do you see guys like steelyD being condescending in their responses to most people? Hell no…he’s a big burly guy, and I would propose that is at least in part because he KNOWS he doesn’t know it all, and that sort of thing is why he, and others, will always get more respect than somebody that acts like you have been.

Have some humble pie. It’s much more enjoyable when everything isn’t a pissing contest. Well, hopefully I can avoid posting in here again.

Nate[/quote]

Best Post

382

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

So at 300 lbs you were doing HS presses and leg presses. Do you feel the extra 5 inches of fat on your waist helped you on these lifts??
[/quote]

Maybe with legs, yes. I was also still doing dumbbells for presses through some of that time so yes, it likely helped with that as well…and lets face it, lifting heavy dumbbells into place for a lift takes full body strength and not just “strong pecs”.

That wasn’t specifically why I was 300lbs. That was based on the fact that I was more interested in gaining muscle than losing body fat at the time. I already knew what my long term goal was…and most guys who look like me at 250 have been heavier.[/quote]

So getting to 300 lbs “maybe” helped with leg press and “likely” helped with DB press. Would you advise someone to gain an extra 5 inches of fat on their waist to “maybe” gain some leverage on leg press and “likely” gain some leverage on Db press?

383

[quote]setto222 wrote:

Now let’s say that the increased mass does lead to increased leverage (which seems to be an accepted notion around here) the mechanical advantage reduce the amount of effort a muscle needs to exert on a mass so to compensate I would assume the subject would increase the weights they are working with. But wouldn’t this just nullify the effects of the advantage? [/quote]

if that were the case, there would be no benefit to “cheating a weight” up. Controlled cheating works because even if the primary muscle group isn’t taking all of the force, the greater load can still stimulate more muscle growth.

Stop looking at this as one moment in time.

Over the course of a year, the guy lifting more will no doubt likely gain more muscle than the guy lifting less.

384

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:

Now let’s say that the increased mass does lead to increased leverage (which seems to be an accepted notion around here) the mechanical advantage reduce the amount of effort a muscle needs to exert on a mass so to compensate I would assume the subject would increase the weights they are working with. But wouldn’t this just nullify the effects of the advantage? [/quote]

if that were the case, there would be no benefit to “cheating a weight” up. Controlled cheating works because even if the primary muscle group isn’t taking all of the force, the greater load can still stimulate more muscle growth.

Stop looking at this as one moment in time.

Over the course of a year, the guy lifting more will no doubt likely gain more muscle than the guy lifting less.[/quote]

Ah! Makes sense.

Basically the added load to the whole body as opposed to the agonists?

Cool beans, thanks.

385

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

So getting to 300 lbs “maybe” helped with leg press and “likely” helped with DB press. Would you advise someone to gain an extra 5 inches of fat on their waist to “maybe” gain some leverage on leg press and “likely” gain some leverage on Db press?[/quote]

I would never recommend someone gain fat as a goal. It is simply understood that it will likely happen to some degree if your goals are extreme.

Some of us accept that and just work on gaining the muscle first.

I am not sure why you keep asking me if I am telling everyone to do exactly what I did. they don’t have my genetics or life so where do you see me telling anyone to gain fat for no reason?

386

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:

Now let’s say that the increased mass does lead to increased leverage (which seems to be an accepted notion around here) the mechanical advantage reduce the amount of effort a muscle needs to exert on a mass so to compensate I would assume the subject would increase the weights they are working with. But wouldn’t this just nullify the effects of the advantage? [/quote]

if that were the case, there would be no benefit to “cheating a weight” up. Controlled cheating works because even if the primary muscle group isn’t taking all of the force, the greater load can still stimulate more muscle growth.

Stop looking at this as one moment in time.

Over the course of a year, the guy lifting more will no doubt likely gain more muscle than the guy lifting less.[/quote]

Ah! Makes sense.

Basically the added load to the whole body as opposed to the agonists?

Cool beans, thanks. [/quote]

No problem. It is the same mistake as the guys looking at how fat as I was as a constant. This takes place over the course of years…so we are always speaking in terms of long term progress.

387

[quote]setto222 wrote:
To anybody watching this thread, can someone please post a link or tell me what to search for information concerning the relation between changes in leverage in terms of changes in mass?

I was under the impression that leverage is pretty much concrete and not susceptible to change in terms of tendon placement. I guess this is more of an outside the muscle-bone connection type of leverage?

Now let’s say that the increased mass does lead to increased leverage (which seems to be an accepted notion around here) the mechanical advantage reduce the amount of effort a muscle needs to exert on a mass so to compensate I would assume the subject would increase the weights they are working with. But wouldn’t this just nullify the effects of the advantage?

Ex:
Subject 1: 180 lbs 0% body fat (for experimental sake)
Squats 180 lbs

Subject 2: 190 lbs + 10 lbs of fat
Squats 190 lbs (180 from muscle contraction + 10 from leverage)

Would subject 2 necessarily grow faster than 1? They are effectively using the same amount of muscle. Or am i totally misunderstanding this?[/quote]
yep, it is broscience to a large extent, that’s why very few here are advocating it from a bodybuilding perspective. From a powerlifting perspective, it DOES help - but there are weight classes, so there’s no unfair advantage as you have to stay competitive with your peers always.

388

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:

Now let’s say that the increased mass does lead to increased leverage (which seems to be an accepted notion around here) the mechanical advantage reduce the amount of effort a muscle needs to exert on a mass so to compensate I would assume the subject would increase the weights they are working with. But wouldn’t this just nullify the effects of the advantage? [/quote]

if that were the case, there would be no benefit to “cheating a weight” up. Controlled cheating works because even if the primary muscle group isn’t taking all of the force, the greater load can still stimulate more muscle growth.

Stop looking at this as one moment in time.

Over the course of a year, the guy lifting more will no doubt likely gain more muscle than the guy lifting less.[/quote]

Ah! Makes sense.

Basically the added load to the whole body as opposed to the agonists?

Cool beans, thanks. [/quote]

No problem. It is the same mistake as the guys looking at how fat as I was as a constant. This takes place over the course of years…so we are always speaking in terms of long term progress.[/quote]

Well yeah, admittedly it is a portion of the adding weight with a bit of fat mentality that I completely over looked. Kinda like wearing a weighted vest around every day for a year. The changes on a week do week basis would be minute but on a year-year or decade-decade would be significant.

389

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

Old school pro BBers used to bulk, that’s what average guys should do.

Now pro BBers are staying lean year round, but that won’t work for average guys.

You don’t see the disconnect there?

Yes, Kai Greene has elite genetics, that’s why I only compared present Kai to past Kai and nobody else. I mean if the guy looks better than ever and says he didn’t gain any more muscle doing the traditional bulk, doesn’t that have merit worthy of consideration?

BTW, it’s hard to get tone from text alone so please understand I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from. I respect your opinion and have enjoyed your thoughts in this thread.[/quote]

I don’t think all pro’s stay lean all year – certainly some do, but not all. We’ve all seen Ronnie and other guys looking quite out of condition.

Plus, keep in mind --most of these are guys who already have incredible amounts of mass. They’re all way past any type of foundation building stage.

Kai does what works for Kai. I remember seeing him in 1996 when he was natural, and he had a better physique and more size than most guys competing in the amateur, non-tested ranks. Freak!

And yes, to X’s point, you can’t ignore drugs, especially GH/thyroid meds to radically alter the off-season game. Just saying, unfortunately.

Good discussion.
[/quote]

Good points. BTW, I’m not saying one must stay lean year round, especially noobs. However, I do think there’s a point of diminishing returns. Would you agree? For the average guy with physique-oriented goals, I don’t see any reason to blow up to anywhere close to 300 lbs.

390

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:

Now let’s say that the increased mass does lead to increased leverage (which seems to be an accepted notion around here) the mechanical advantage reduce the amount of effort a muscle needs to exert on a mass so to compensate I would assume the subject would increase the weights they are working with. But wouldn’t this just nullify the effects of the advantage? [/quote]

if that were the case, there would be no benefit to “cheating a weight” up. Controlled cheating works because even if the primary muscle group isn’t taking all of the force, the greater load can still stimulate more muscle growth.

Stop looking at this as one moment in time.

Over the course of a year, the guy lifting more will no doubt likely gain more muscle than the guy lifting less.[/quote]

Ah! Makes sense.

Basically the added load to the whole body as opposed to the agonists?

Cool beans, thanks. [/quote]

No problem. It is the same mistake as the guys looking at how fat as I was as a constant. This takes place over the course of years…so we are always speaking in terms of long term progress.[/quote]

Well yeah, admittedly it is a portion of the adding weight with a bit of fat mentality that I completely over looked. Kinda like wearing a weighted vest around every day for a year. The changes on a week do week basis would be minute but on a year-year or decade-decade would be significant. [/quote]

You just explained what it took me a whole thread to get across.

Good posts.

391

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

Good points. BTW, I’m not saying one must stay lean year round, especially noobs. However, I do think there’s a point of diminishing returns. Would you agree? For the average guy with physique-oriented goals, I don’t see any reason to blow up to anywhere close to 300 lbs.[/quote]

That is why no one is telling the “average” guy to do anything like this.

That is why I have made stipulations over the years like “if you got to 18” arms naturally, you probably have the genetics to go pretty far in terms of mass gained and genetics".

The AVERAGE person with AVERAGE genetics and AVERAGE strength gains should take an AVERAGE approach.

The thing is, no one knows where they stand on that genetic scale until they actually do it.

392

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am not being condescending here. Steely isn’t even responding much lately. He like many others respond less because of the attitude of this forum. It has changed from what it was…thus the loss of guys like bwhitwell as well.

[/quote]

Why are you speaking for Steely? Didn’t you complain about me speaking for other posters not too long ago? Steely has been posting. Perhaps you missed his Best Poast, Roast, Toast, and Markie Post… posts.

LOL[/quote]

SteelyD is working. He just quit his job and the next 3 weeks will be a shitstorm until he starts his new job.

Besides, he doesn’t really know anything about all this bio-science x-y% bodyfat optimal gains shit. He just eats a lot of meat and tries to lift heavy shit and grow a yoke and arms.

393

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am not being condescending here. Steely isn’t even responding much lately. He like many others respond less because of the attitude of this forum. It has changed from what it was…thus the loss of guys like bwhitwell as well.

[/quote]

Why are you speaking for Steely? Didn’t you complain about me speaking for other posters not too long ago? Steely has been posting. Perhaps you missed his Best Poast, Roast, Toast, and Markie Post… posts.

LOL[/quote]

SteelyD is working. He just quit his job and the next 3 weeks will be a shitstorm until he starts his new job.

Besides, he doesn’t really know anything about all this bio-science x-y% bodyfat optimal gains shit. He just eats a lot of meat and tries to lift heavy shit and grow a yoke and arms.[/quote]

LOL. They are using you as an example when the truth is, you avoid giving your opinion often lately.

The thing is, I haven’t seen any proof the “bro-sciency way” is actually worth looking at.

Guys were bigger when they didn’t care about all this shit.

394

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am not being condescending here. Steely isn’t even responding much lately. He like many others respond less because of the attitude of this forum. It has changed from what it was…thus the loss of guys like bwhitwell as well.

[/quote]

Why are you speaking for Steely? Didn’t you complain about me speaking for other posters not too long ago? Steely has been posting. Perhaps you missed his Best Poast, Roast, Toast, and Markie Post… posts.

LOL[/quote]

SteelyD is working. He just quit his job and the next 3 weeks will be a shitstorm until he starts his new job.

Besides, he doesn’t really know anything about all this bio-science x-y% bodyfat optimal gains shit. He just eats a lot of meat and tries to lift heavy shit and grow a yoke and arms.[/quote]
But why does he speak in the 3rd?

395

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am not being condescending here. Steely isn’t even responding much lately. He like many others respond less because of the attitude of this forum. It has changed from what it was…thus the loss of guys like bwhitwell as well.

[/quote]

Why are you speaking for Steely? Didn’t you complain about me speaking for other posters not too long ago? Steely has been posting. Perhaps you missed his Best Poast, Roast, Toast, and Markie Post… posts.

LOL[/quote]

SteelyD is working. He just quit his job and the next 3 weeks will be a shitstorm until he starts his new job.

Besides, he doesn’t really know anything about all this bio-science x-y% bodyfat optimal gains shit. He just eats a lot of meat and tries to lift heavy shit and grow a yoke and arms.[/quote]
But why does he speak in the 3rd?[/quote]

Super saiyan isn’t sure but super saiyan thinks he likes it.

396

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am not being condescending here. Steely isn’t even responding much lately. He like many others respond less because of the attitude of this forum. It has changed from what it was…thus the loss of guys like bwhitwell as well.

[/quote]

Why are you speaking for Steely? Didn’t you complain about me speaking for other posters not too long ago? Steely has been posting. Perhaps you missed his Best Poast, Roast, Toast, and Markie Post… posts.

LOL[/quote]

SteelyD is working. He just quit his job and the next 3 weeks will be a shitstorm until he starts his new job.

Besides, he doesn’t really know anything about all this bio-science x-y% bodyfat optimal gains shit. He just eats a lot of meat and tries to lift heavy shit and grow a yoke and arms.[/quote]
But why does he speak in the 3rd?[/quote]

Super saiyan isn’t sure but super saiyan thinks he likes it.[/quote]

Why would George steal from the Yankees?!

S

397

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I am not being condescending here. Steely isn’t even responding much lately. He like many others respond less because of the attitude of this forum. It has changed from what it was…thus the loss of guys like bwhitwell as well.

[/quote]

Why are you speaking for Steely? Didn’t you complain about me speaking for other posters not too long ago? Steely has been posting. Perhaps you missed his Best Poast, Roast, Toast, and Markie Post… posts.

LOL[/quote]

SteelyD is working. He just quit his job and the next 3 weeks will be a shitstorm until he starts his new job.

Besides, he doesn’t really know anything about all this bio-science x-y% bodyfat optimal gains shit. He just eats a lot of meat and tries to lift heavy shit and grow a yoke and arms.[/quote]
But why does he speak in the 3rd?[/quote]

Super saiyan isn’t sure but super saiyan thinks he likes it.[/quote]

Why would George steal from the Yankees?!

S[/quote]

SteelyD is LHAO.

398

If the Pros are utilising the new approach of staying leaner between contests due to a new way of looking at accepted practices or maybe the need to stay lean for more frequent lucrative photoshoots than in times gone by how would this reflect upon a contest ready Pro? Would you expect to see a reduction in overall size over the coming decade or so if this method persists regards the upcoming younger Pros who may choose to bulk leaner?

399

[quote]steven alex wrote:
If the Pros are utilising the new approach of staying leaner between contests due to a new way of looking at accepted practices or maybe the need to stay lean for more frequent lucrative photoshoots than in times gone by how would this reflect upon a contest ready Pro? Would you expect to see a reduction in overall size over the coming decade or so if this method persists regards the upcoming younger Pros who may choose to bulk leaner?[/quote]

Let me put it like this…I know a lot of guys who compete. I know for a fact one is 325-350lbs right now at a height of 6’5". The amount of hormones this guy is on and GH allow him to have ABS at that weight even if his belly sticks out (something I would expect from what he does). For anyone to ignore how much these drugs play into how they get away with looking like that most of the year when most guys who competed in the 60’s would not is suspect at best.

These guys are not staying leaner because of their amazing attention to diet. They are staying leaner because if you have elite genetics, you can fuck up on your diet a little and still look amazing.

I am trying to avoid getting into specific amounts, but if I know guys taking in 5-10iu’s of gh every other day or sometimes everyday, you blame THAT for why he is eating cheeseburgers and still has veins on his abs and NOT his amazing attention to diet specifics.

400

Do you remember which thread it was that you posted the picture of yourself at 300 pounds Professor X?

Is it possibly in your hub? Could you repost it? 5’10 @ 300 pounds is massive.