The Body Weight Factor 2

Training
401

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
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.[/quote]

I posted pics in my avatar for years of me all of the way past 290lbs. I don’t even have all of those pics right now. I do find it strange people are this critical of me but somehow missed that for ten years. I was one of the few to show pics of me at my fattest just to show how far I let it go. The one shirtless pic I posted at 285lbs was in my living room and no one thought I was obese then.

402

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I think that sometimes people forget that old school bodybuilders all bulked up as youths, some even getting downright fat, and continued to include bulk up periods during the off-season.

The whole “stay lean all year” thing is a relatively new phenomena, and is a necessary evil just for guys who make money off of being lean and near-camera ready. [/quote]

How about the “never get lean” phenomenon?

Is that similarly new?

403

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
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.[/quote]

I posted pics in my avatar for years of me all of the way past 290lbs. I don’t even have all of those pics right now. I do find it strange people are this critical of me but somehow missed that for ten years. I was one of the few to show pics of me at my fattest just to show how far I let it go. The one shirtless pic I posted at 285lbs was in my living room and no one thought I was obese then.[/quote]

Is that photo in your hub perhaps?

I recall several cartoon avatars from way back that, if I am not mistaken, were illustrated by IrownDwarf but do not specifically remember the photos that you are referring to. Admittedly I might not have been paying too close of attention at that time.

Me, and I’m sure several others, would very much like to see those photos if you have them. I’m sure it would be a pretty incredible transition from your “Urkle” look to Mr T (lol) to the 285 “powerlifter” look and now leaned down to your current 255-260 physique.

That would be quite a cool collection of photos for a fitness board and I’m sure many would love to see them.

Thank you for your time.

404

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
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.[/quote]

I posted pics in my avatar for years of me all of the way past 290lbs. I don’t even have all of those pics right now. I do find it strange people are this critical of me but somehow missed that for ten years. I was one of the few to show pics of me at my fattest just to show how far I let it go. The one shirtless pic I posted at 285lbs was in my living room and no one thought I was obese then.[/quote]

Is that photo in your hub perhaps?

I recall several cartoon avatars from way back that, if I am not mistaken, were illustrated by IrownDwarf but do not specifically remember the photos that you are referring to. Admittedly I might not have been paying too close of attention at that time.

Me, and I’m sure several others, would very much like to see those photos if you have them. I’m sure it would be a pretty incredible transition from your “Urkle” look to Mr T (lol) to the 285 “powerlifter” look and now leaned down to your current 255-260 physique.

That would be quite a cool collection of photos for a fitness board and I’m sure many would love to see them.

Thank you for your time.[/quote]

I don’t have them. The phone most of those photos were on was stolen so unless people downloaded and kept them, they will have to go from memory.

I posted new pics in my avatar almost every other month for the last ten years or more. I have shown everyone how I did it that way. That is why the comments lately like I somehow just got fat are so off base.

The same guys doing that are the ones who laughed because the shirtless 285lbs pic wasn’t bright enough…yet now somehow everyone forgot.

405

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
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.[/quote]

I posted pics in my avatar for years of me all of the way past 290lbs. I don’t even have all of those pics right now. I do find it strange people are this critical of me but somehow missed that for ten years. I was one of the few to show pics of me at my fattest just to show how far I let it go. The one shirtless pic I posted at 285lbs was in my living room and no one thought I was obese then.[/quote]

Is that photo in your hub perhaps?

I recall several cartoon avatars from way back that, if I am not mistaken, were illustrated by IrownDwarf but do not specifically remember the photos that you are referring to. Admittedly I might not have been paying too close of attention at that time.

Me, and I’m sure several others, would very much like to see those photos if you have them. I’m sure it would be a pretty incredible transition from your “Urkle” look to Mr T (lol) to the 285 “powerlifter” look and now leaned down to your current 255-260 physique.

That would be quite a cool collection of photos for a fitness board and I’m sure many would love to see them.

Thank you for your time.[/quote]

I don’t have them. The phone most of those photos were on was stolen so unless people downloaded and kept them, they will have to go from memory.

I posted new pics in my avatar almost every other month for the last ten years or more. I have shown everyone how I did it that way. That is why the comments lately like I somehow just got fat are so off base.

The same guys doing that are the ones who laughed because the shirtless 285lbs pic wasn’t bright enough…yet now somehow everyone forgot.[/quote]

Ahhhh stolen phones are the worst. I have had to phones stolen, well one might have been left in a taxi cab, and losing the photos is always the worst part. I am glad that my photos are “in the cloud” now :slight_smile:

If you posted them then they should be around the site somewhere? Maybe someone with a little more Internet savy could locate them? I just think a “collage” (there really should be a manly term for a collection of photos like this) of your transformation would be a powerful image that many here would get behind and support.

Going from a 110 pounds soaking wet to a 300 pound mountain of muscle and then trimming down to a 260 pound human hulk is quite the feat!!!

406

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I think that sometimes people forget that old school bodybuilders all bulked up as youths, some even getting downright fat, and continued to include bulk up periods during the off-season.

The whole “stay lean all year” thing is a relatively new phenomena, and is a necessary evil just for guys who make money off of being lean and near-camera ready.

Not saying there isn’t a point where fat gets out of hand – it does – but these “4 week bulk/4 week cut” anal retentive things are not ideal for the majority of guys, fitness models and actors notwithstanding. [/quote]

I’ve also heard top BBers, like Kai Greene, say that the only difference is that they don’t have to lose as much during prep time. He said he deluded himself in thinking that he was gaining any more muscle by bulking up even more in the past. And this past Olympia is the best Kai has ever looked. Excessive bulking can work, it’s just not necessary.

I do agree about the paranoid mini bulks and cuts though.[/quote]

Kai Greene also has about the greatest muscle building potential of any human being on the planet.

I’m speaking more to the typical college guy who thinks he should go on a 12 week cut to show off his gains from 2 years of lifting.

Big difference.
[/quote]

30+ pounds of muscle can be built in two years. You don’t think this is enough to show off? After the third year, muscular gains are going to come very slow anyway.

407

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Mr Krahn,

Now that we have hopefully cleared things up I would like to ask a you a few questions if that is ok?

Admittedly, I am not extremely familiar with your writings or training philosophy so excuse me if some of my questions sound “noobish.”

Disclaimer
Without actual body fat percentages this is purely speculation based off of one photograph and Professor X’s stated body weight of 255
End Disclaimer

What would you guesstimate his BF% at? Would you say 15% is a fairly accurate assumption based off of that single photo?

What would be your strategy to get an experienced lifter like Professor X to go from 255 pounds with 15% BF down to 10% or less BF in 8 weeks?

Thank you in advance. If any of my numbers seem off to you please feel free to correct them.

Again, this is purely speculation.[/quote]

No need for apologizing or misters, we’re all friends here.

My guess would be 15-18%, but its a guess completely out of my arse – which is why these “guess my bodyfat” threads are so painful.

You really have no idea until you start pinching (or submerging, if using a bod-pod)

For him to get sub-10% in 8 weeks (this is my opinion) would require an aggressive, fairly low (lower than he’d like) carb intake with occasional refeeds. He would get more refeeds and more carbs in general as he tightened up.

Cause he is so big I would let all that muscle burn the fat, and keep his cardio to just walking, maybe light sled work.

Dietary fat and protein would be his friend. Also a very, very good candidate for Indigo 3G.

He’d be freaky if he decided to do it. Except for the calves of course. :wink:
[/quote]

If we use your guesstimation of 15-18% and go with the benefit of the doubt and say 15%, that would mean Professor is carrying roughly 217 pounds of lean body mass. Hypothetically speaking of course.

Dieting down from those hypothetical guesstimated stats to 10% (or less) would be roughly 240 pounds? Assuming there was no lean body mass lost in the process.

240 pounds @ 10% body fat would look very impressive. I agree, it would be “freaky” on a 5’10-5’11 frame (which IIRC is Professor X’s height?)

Do you think that a roughly 2 pound pure fat loss per week for 8 weeks straight is an achievable goal for an intermediate to advanced lifter like Professor X?

Thank you for your helpful insight, hypothetically speaking of course ;)[/quote]

No way PX can diet to an actual 240 lbs 10% bodyfat natural. I will have to see it to believe it. 10 % is abs and serratus showing with definition in the legs etc. and not too far off from contest condition. Sorry.

I am not trying to shit on Professor X here believe me. He has built a solid physique for the most part. But 240 10% would blow pretty much every natty bber ever at his height out of the water. [/quote]

I agree with this. Most guys are 5 to 7% onstage. I also can’t see how he could be 240 at 10% natural particularly because of his lower body. I think he’d have to be closer to 200 to be 10%.
[/quote]

I think this is where the main disagreement here is. We all agree that there are times when putting on a little extra fat is necessarry to gain muscle. But for someone natty of average height with physique oriented goals (big and lean) there is no reason to get to 300 lbs. You could hold the “set point” of 300 pounds as long as you like, you would still be extremely lucky to get down to 200lbs 10% or less.

why would anyone with a goal of being really big and really lean want to put themselves in a situation where they have to lose 100 POUNDS to reach that goal?[/quote]

Yeah, look up Bruce Randall’s failed bulk in which he got up and held a “top weight” of 400 pounds, only to diet down and not even come out much more muscular than before. Apparently his increased leverage from obesity in his 1000 pound good mornings didn’t do much in terms of muscular size.

408

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I think that sometimes people forget that old school bodybuilders all bulked up as youths, some even getting downright fat, and continued to include bulk up periods during the off-season.

The whole “stay lean all year” thing is a relatively new phenomena, and is a necessary evil just for guys who make money off of being lean and near-camera ready.

Not saying there isn’t a point where fat gets out of hand – it does – but these “4 week bulk/4 week cut” anal retentive things are not ideal for the majority of guys, fitness models and actors notwithstanding. [/quote]

I’ve also heard top BBers, like Kai Greene, say that the only difference is that they don’t have to lose as much during prep time. He said he deluded himself in thinking that he was gaining any more muscle by bulking up even more in the past. And this past Olympia is the best Kai has ever looked. Excessive bulking can work, it’s just not necessary.

I do agree about the paranoid mini bulks and cuts though.[/quote]

Kai Greene also has about the greatest muscle building potential of any human being on the planet.

I’m speaking more to the typical college guy who thinks he should go on a 12 week cut to show off his gains from 2 years of lifting.

Big difference.
[/quote]

30+ pounds of muscle can be built in two years. You don’t think this is enough to show off? After the third year, muscular gains are going to come very slow anyway. [/quote]

If you can put on 30 pounds of MUSCLE in two years, why the hell would you throw cold water on that momentum by jumping into a restrictive diet?

Ride it out, get big, get strong, make babies – then get lean.

409

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I think that sometimes people forget that old school bodybuilders all bulked up as youths, some even getting downright fat, and continued to include bulk up periods during the off-season.

The whole “stay lean all year” thing is a relatively new phenomena, and is a necessary evil just for guys who make money off of being lean and near-camera ready.

Not saying there isn’t a point where fat gets out of hand – it does – but these “4 week bulk/4 week cut” anal retentive things are not ideal for the majority of guys, fitness models and actors notwithstanding. [/quote]

I’ve also heard top BBers, like Kai Greene, say that the only difference is that they don’t have to lose as much during prep time. He said he deluded himself in thinking that he was gaining any more muscle by bulking up even more in the past. And this past Olympia is the best Kai has ever looked. Excessive bulking can work, it’s just not necessary.

I do agree about the paranoid mini bulks and cuts though.[/quote]

Kai Greene also has about the greatest muscle building potential of any human being on the planet.

I’m speaking more to the typical college guy who thinks he should go on a 12 week cut to show off his gains from 2 years of lifting.

Big difference.
[/quote]

30+ pounds of muscle can be built in two years. You don’t think this is enough to show off? After the third year, muscular gains are going to come very slow anyway. [/quote]

If you can put on 30 pounds of MUSCLE in two years, why the hell would you throw cold water on that momentum by jumping into a restrictive diet?

Ride it out, get big, get strong, make babies – then get lean. [/quote]

Yes, true. Probably depends on what the person wants (eg, dieting for summer or a show sooner than later). I see your point.

410

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I think that sometimes people forget that old school bodybuilders all bulked up as youths, some even getting downright fat, and continued to include bulk up periods during the off-season.

The whole “stay lean all year” thing is a relatively new phenomena, and is a necessary evil just for guys who make money off of being lean and near-camera ready.

Not saying there isn’t a point where fat gets out of hand – it does – but these “4 week bulk/4 week cut” anal retentive things are not ideal for the majority of guys, fitness models and actors notwithstanding. [/quote]

I’ve also heard top BBers, like Kai Greene, say that the only difference is that they don’t have to lose as much during prep time. He said he deluded himself in thinking that he was gaining any more muscle by bulking up even more in the past. And this past Olympia is the best Kai has ever looked. Excessive bulking can work, it’s just not necessary.

I do agree about the paranoid mini bulks and cuts though.[/quote]

Kai Greene also has about the greatest muscle building potential of any human being on the planet.

I’m speaking more to the typical college guy who thinks he should go on a 12 week cut to show off his gains from 2 years of lifting.

Big difference.
[/quote]

30+ pounds of muscle can be built in two years. You don’t think this is enough to show off? After the third year, muscular gains are going to come very slow anyway. [/quote]

If you can put on 30 pounds of MUSCLE in two years, why the hell would you throw cold water on that momentum by jumping into a restrictive diet?

Ride it out, get big, get strong, make babies – then get lean. [/quote]

Yes, true. Probably depends on what the person wants (eg, dieting for summer or a show sooner than later). I see your point.
[/quote]

i don’t think the issue here is so much about bulking “big” in the first few years, but people being delusional that they can do that for their entire training career and saying it doesn’t have diminishing returns. Or being even more delusional and never even going under 15% bf

411

X, what kind of gains do you see in store for yourself in the next few years? I ask this because you’ve been training for over 15 years as a natural (aside from some stint with prohormones) and said that you’re nowhere near where you want to be and because after about five years of PROPER training and nutrition, gains for naturals come at a snail’s pace or… STOP! How much more mass do you think you can reasonably gain til 40 years old?

I believe you can add more whole body mass by bringing your legs up but the total gain will not be outrageous because of what I said above about gains in general. What does your current leg training look like?

412

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
“Bodybuilding is an illusion”

why do they say that?[/quote]

Because you can’t define the strength level of a LOOK…like some in this thread seem to be doing.[/quote]
no

It’s looking at how you present yourself. That’s partially why Arnold did so well. He knew how to hide his weaknesses, show off his strengths, and present himself as above all his competitors.

You did that very well. When I first logged on here I read some dominant posts of yours, along with stats of: 300 lbs, 20" arms, 30" legs, 405+ bench for reps, and preacher curls with over 85 lb DBs and really thought that you were reaching the upper echelon of bodybuilding. So in some ways that’s pretty cool.

413

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
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.[/quote]

I posted pics in my avatar for years of me all of the way past 290lbs. I don’t even have all of those pics right now. I do find it strange people are this critical of me but somehow missed that for ten years. I was one of the few to show pics of me at my fattest just to show how far I let it go. The one shirtless pic I posted at 285lbs was in my living room and no one thought I was obese then.[/quote]

Dude, you look jacked in the pics, and not the least bit fat by any stretch of the imagination…why don’t you just put these people on ignore that keep bitching about it??

414

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Guys were bigger when they didn’t care about all this shit.[/quote]

I honestly do believe this.

Internet blessing/curse.

415

[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]

well said, again, it is not what he says but how he says it most of the time. a grown man does not talk to other adults like that in real life, unless they like to fight often.

i mean that. the “let me make this clear to you” “here it is in red crayon” “you have no reading comprehension” shit like that gets you punched in the face in real life.

I can guarantee X that you would NOT speak to me that way if we were having a discussion in person. the minute that condescending insulting tone came my way i would give you one chance to step away from me and speak to me no more

this is NOT me being a tough guy, like i said, adult men do not talk to other adult men in that way in person.

unless X has NO friends, or has some of the most tolerant and passive and easily bullied people around him in the world, i seriously doubt he talks this way to other adults in real life.

point is, this is all and act, and i really think he enjoys getting the masses stirred up. he probably is laughing his ass off as he reviews all the 100lb page shitstorms he has been part of.

416

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
10% is no where near contest shape – unless you want to finish in last place.

10% is lean, average, athletic male – visible linea alba (not “in the right light abs”) and usually some clear definition. That’s it.
[/quote]

What BF% would you guess, if you don’t know for sure, you are in your avatar picture?

417

[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]

i am going to agree with x on this basic thought, analyze it “scientifically” all you want, but i KNOW if you get bigger you get stronger.

IF you are working hard.

i cant tell you how many times i would reach a plateu on certain lifts, and to break through i would eat 3 peanut butter sandwiches and wash down with a protein powder mixed in a gallon of chocolate milk right before beditime. this was my routine when i wanted to put on a few lbs to get past a sticking point.

it worked, i cant explain scientifically why, but it worked. and it worked for the dozens of other guys i trained with.

their is a reason that in every typoe of strength sport the most weight being moved is in the heavyweight class guys body fat % be damned.

418

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Guys were bigger when they didn’t care about all this shit.[/quote]

I honestly do believe this.

Internet blessing/curse.[/quote]

just another pendulum swing steel. this site was dominated by big pl and strongment types for a while, then the functional shit came along, and now it seems the ultra lean contest or near contest ready bb type thinking is in command here lately.

419

[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I was perhaps a little generous when I said 15% – remember what I said about internet bodyfat estimates being retarded? – as he is more than likely closer to 18%. But again, this all depends on the percentage formula used. (I always use a 12 site formula.)

Your “no way if natural” argument is a red herring – whether or not drugs are used wasn’t part of the discussion. [/quote]

Lets continue the guestimating dieting topic if that’s ok?

Assuming the most accurate hypothetical 12 site measurement possible revealed a hypothetical 18% body fat for Professor X.

18% body fat at 255 pounds reveals 209 pounds of lean body mass. That would mean if be hypothetically dieted down to 10% body get without losing any muscle it would be a body weight of 232-235 correct?

Do you still think those dieting numbers are possible in 8 weeks without chemical assistance?

Would you use the same strategy?

Thank you again.

420

Hi every body, I just thought that this might be relevant to the topic being discussed in this thread:

Body composition of anorexia nervosa patients assessed by underwater weighing and skinfold-thickness measurements before and after weight gain1,2
Michel Probst, Marina Goris, Walter Vandereycken, and Herman Van Coppenolle
ABSTRACT
Background:Weight restoration is a crucial element in the treatmentof patients with anorexia nervosa. Therefore, the validity of different methods for measuring body composition is important.
Objective: We tested the concurrent validity of hydrodensitometry (underwater weighing) and anthropometry (12 skinfold thicknesses) and assessed body composition and subcutaneous fatbefore and after a refeeding program and a multifaceted programof therapy in a specialized inpatient unit for eating disorders.
Design: The body composition of a large sample of anorexia nervosapatients (97 restricting type, 33 binging-purging type) wasstudied by using 2 methods both before and after weight gain.We applied a behavioral contract for weight restoration with a minimum weekly gain of 700 g and a maximum of 3 kg. Bland-Altman analysis of agreement, Pearson correlation analysis, t tests,and analysis of covariance were used.
Results: There was good agreement between the results obtained by underwater weighing and by skinfold-thickness
measurement (r = 0.76, P < 0.001); the results produced by the 2 methods did not differ significantly. On average, a significant weight gain (11.9 kg) was observed, composed of 6.6 kg fat and 5.3 kg fat-free mass.
Conclusions: Body fat estimation by skinfold-thickness equation appeared to be as accurate as underwater weighing. The refeeding program led to a significant increase in body weight, of which 55.5% was body fat. The mean ratio of fat-free mass to fat mass at the end of the treatment was 3.4:1. Am J Clin Nutr 2001;73:190â??7.

Effect of dietary protein content on weight gain, energy expenditure, and body composition during overeating: a randomized controlled trial.
Bray GA, Smith SR, de Jonge L, Xie H, Rood J, Martin CK, Most M, Brock C, Mancuso S, Redman LM.
Source
Pennington Biomedical Research Center, 6400 Perkins Rd, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA. George.bray@pbrc.edu
Erratum in
JAMA. 2012 Mar 14;307(10):1028.
Abstract
CONTEXT:
The role of diet composition in response to overeating and energy dissipation in humans is unclear.
OBJECTIVE:
To evaluate the effects of overconsumption of low, normal, and high protein diets on weight gain, energy expenditure, and body composition.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
A single-blind, randomized controlled trial of 25 US healthy, weight-stable male and female volunteers, aged 18 to 35 years with a body mass index between 19 and 30. The first participant was admitted to the inpatient metabolic unit in June 2005 and the last in October 2007.
INTERVENTION:
After consuming a weight-stabilizing diet for 13 to 25 days, participants were randomized to diets containing 5% of energy from protein (low protein), 15% (normal protein), or 25% (high protein), which they were overfed during the last 8 weeks of their 10- to 12-week stay in the inpatient metabolic unit. Compared with energy intake during the weight stabilization period, the protein diets provided approximately 40% more energy intake, which corresponds to 954 kcal/d (95% CI, 884-1022 kcal/d).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Body composition was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry biweekly, resting energy expenditure was measured weekly by ventilated hood, and total energy expenditure by doubly labeled water prior to the overeating and weight stabilization periods and at weeks 7 to 8.
RESULTS:
Overeating produced significantly less weight gain in the low protein diet group (3.16 kg; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44 kg) compared with the normal protein diet group (6.05 kg; 95% CI, 4.84-7.26 kg) or the high protein diet group (6.51 kg; 95% CI, 5.23-7.79 kg) (P = .002). Body fat increased similarly in all 3 protein diet groups and represented 50% to more than 90% of the excess stored calories. Resting energy expenditure, total energy expenditure, and body protein did not increase during overfeeding with the low protein diet. In contrast, resting energy expenditure (normal protein diet: 160 kcal/d [95% CI, 102-218 kcal/d]; high protein diet: 227 kcal/d [95% CI, 165-289 kcal/d]) and body protein (lean body mass) (normal protein diet: 2.87 kg [95% CI, 2.11-3.62 kg]; high protein diet: 3.18 kg [95% CI, 2.37-3.98 kg]) increased significantly with the normal and high protein diets.
CONCLUSIONS:
Among persons living in a controlled setting, calories alone account for the increase in fat; protein affected energy expenditure and storage of lean body mass, but not body fat storage.

Upper limit of fatâ??free mass in humans: A study on Japanese Sumo wrestlers Masakatsu Kondo, Takashi Abe Ph.D, Shigeki Ikegawa, Yasuo Kawakami,Tetsuo Fukunaga
American Journal of Human Biology
(impact factor: 2.27). 05/2005; 6(5):613 - 618. DOI:10.1002/ajhb.1310060509
ABSTRACT: If limitations exist in skeletal dimensions, fat-free mass (FFM) might have an upper limit. To explore the upper limit to FFM, 37 professional Japanese Sumo wrestlers, 14 highly trained bodybuilders, and 26 untrained men were investigated for body composition (fat mass and FFM) and cross-sectional areas (CSA) of limb muscles, by hydrodensitometry and ultrasound, respectively. Mean % fat of Sumo wrestlers, bodybuilders, and untrained subjects were, respectively, 26.1%, 10.9%, and 12.1%. Sumo wrestlers had a significantly greater FFM than bodybuilders, who had a greater FFM than the untrained men. Six of the wrestlers had more than 100 kg of FFM, including the largest one of 121.3 kg (stature: 186 cm, mass: 181 kg, %fat: 33.0%). The FFM/stature ratio of elite Sumo wrestlers averaged at 0.61 kg/cm, with the highest 0.66 kg/cm. It is suggested that a FFM/stature ratio of 0.7 kg/cm may be an upper limit in humans. © 1994 Wiley-Liss, Inc

Its just that I am simply amazed by the anabolic properties of food.