The Body Weight Factor 2

Training
441

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

See, I think this part of the topic is pretty obvious. You gain more weight, SOME of it is bound to be muscle. I recall a few years back reading a study about these morbidly obese people who did NOT exercise at all, and on average, when they gained weight, about 20-30% of it was muscle.
[/quote]

Maybe and maybe not. A fat, untrained person, who’s one physical exertion is lugging around their own body doesn’t necessarily hold true for a trained person who is already hold substantially more muscle.

Additionally, stuff like this discussing lean body mass (not muscle, unless they were actually measuring muscle) I’ve found problematic to look at. Water retention, organs, est count as LBM. I think it gets hard to say that 20% LBM increase in a fat guy who doesn’t train really translates to any actual muscle at all.

442

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
One point I think people aren?t considering is that excess calories do NOT necessarily mean lean tissue has a surplus of nutrition. It is actually hormonally possible to eat an excess of calories while starving lean tissue. Generally speaking, a person that bad off is in a diseased state, BUT it is probably a continuum.[/quote]

If someone is LOSING muscle in a caloric surplus, they have a disease process going on or are bed ridden. That isn’t a “continuum”.

That would depend more on the lifestyle of that individual alone. 300lbs would be too much for me right now at all. It was not too much for me at the time due to many reasons from location to overall stress.[/quote]

I never mentioned losing muscle. [/quote]

My mistake. Then I do not understand how you came to “starving muscle”. How would you even be able to calculate “starving muscle” in a human body?

443

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:

I think that long run, it honestly just depends on the person, but I have NOT seen nearly enough people, natties specifically, that got HUGE and strong, then a few years down the road, were better off than their counterparts that stayed at least relatively lean the whole time. [/quote]

I haven’t seen nearly enough people who even take this as seriously as I do in the gym as far as year upon year in the gym consistency…so saying you saw few who got even bigger doesn’t surprise me.

I mean, seriously, there may be thousands of people logging in but only 50 of those may have the genetics to actually gain any more muscle than average.[/quote]

The small controlled sample size, and the long time period of observation necessary, are what make a proper, beginning to end study of the subject so difficult. But I have kept tabs on a good deal of friends and acquaintances over a period of 5+ years, and I have yet to see any distinguishable benefit that really seemed to come from getting overly chubby (aka over 15% or so).[/quote]

But, I would agree with that for the average person. I don’t think most people need to be literally pushing past a certain body fat percentage. That isn’t even what anyone here is saying.

It has NOT been stated that someone will see benefit from continuing to gain body fat for no reason. You seem to be missing what is actually being said…that some people make way more progress focusing on size alone for a few years.

444

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
One point I think people aren?t considering is that excess calories do NOT necessarily mean lean tissue has a surplus of nutrition. It is actually hormonally possible to eat an excess of calories while starving lean tissue. Generally speaking, a person that bad off is in a diseased state, BUT it is probably a continuum.[/quote]

If someone is LOSING muscle in a caloric surplus, they have a disease process going on or are bed ridden. That isn’t a “continuum”.

That would depend more on the lifestyle of that individual alone. 300lbs would be too much for me right now at all. It was not too much for me at the time due to many reasons from location to overall stress.[/quote]

I never mentioned losing muscle. [/quote]

My mistake. Then I do not understand how you came to “starving muscle”. How would you even be able to calculate “starving muscle” in a human body?[/quote]

At a point eating more can cause reduced nutrition available to LBM. That doesnâ??t mean its necessarily at a deficit and decreasing in size.

Well, in studies with rats, they can either bread or dietary or surgically alter the hormonal system. With fat rats, they can then reduce calories and starve the rats. Some of the rats even on death have more fat that the un-altered rats. With reduce LBM, including even things like their brains. Additionally there are mechanisms already explained for a reduction in the ability of LBM to process blood sugar with fat gain and conically elevated levels of blood sugar.

But for the most part, I’d figure that out the same way you figured out allowing more fat gain ensures the most muscular progress. Personal experience.

I’ve been absurdly skinny, fat insulin resistive, and fairly lean and muscular. That’s where I draw my experience from.

445

X, on what studies are you basing your claim that tendons recover slower over the age of 35?

As we all know, you are loathe to form any opinion from general population studies and apply it to bodybuilders/weightlifters, so I’d like to see the studies on weightlifting populations that suggest tendons heal 4 times slower after 35. Kthanx

446

Here’s an interesting anecdote:

George Leeman is an absolute freak of nature; deadlifts close to 900, as an example. He pushed his bodyweight into the 400s, lifted huge weights in every compound lift, and clearly put on a lot of muscle.

And yet, his weight when he finally dieted into lean condition was 225-230. That on a 6’2" frame and from a genetic outlier. N=1, but that should raise some red flags about force-feeding and abandoning the very reasonable approach of tracking macros.

447

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
X, what studies are you basing your claim that tendons recover slower over the age of 35?[/quote]

Go look up recovery time for tendon injuries based on age.

Dude, they teach this in school to earn the degree. Yes, your dentist knows this too…or should.

448

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Here’s an interesting anecdote:

George Leeman is an absolute freak of nature; deadlifts close to 900, as an example. He pushed his bodyweight into the 400s, lifted huge weights in every compound lift, and clearly put on a lot of muscle.

And yet, his weight when he finally dieted into lean condition was 225-230. That on a 6’2" frame and from a genetic outlier. N=1, but that should raise some red flags about force-feeding and abandoning the very reasonable approach of tracking macros.[/quote]
Question.

Could he have pulled that weight at 225?

449

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Here’s an interesting anecdote:

George Leeman is an absolute freak of nature; deadlifts close to 900, as an example. He pushed his bodyweight into the 400s, lifted huge weights in every compound lift, and clearly put on a lot of muscle.

And yet, his weight when he finally dieted into lean condition was 225-230. That on a 6’2" frame and from a genetic outlier. N=1, but that should raise some red flags about force-feeding and abandoning the very reasonable approach of tracking macros.[/quote]

?? He made amazing progress that no one his age had made. How many dieted down 230lbs 6’2" guys do we have on this forum? Hell, that’s basically the size I would see in many NPC contests.

450

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

At a point eating more can cause reduced nutrition available to LBM. That doesnâ??t mean its necessarily at a deficit and decreasing in size.[/quote]

Eating more causes muscles to starve? ? I am not following you with this at all and it isn’t anything I learned in school.

[quote]

Well, in studies with rats, they can either bread or dietary or surgically alter the hormonal system. With fat rats, they can then reduce calories and starve the rats. Some of the rats even on death have more fat that the un-altered rats. With reduce LBM, including even things like their brains. Additionally there are mechanisms already explained for a reduction in the ability of LBM to process blood sugar with fat gain and conically elevated levels of blood sugar.[/quote]

This doesn’t explain how eating more causes muscles to starve.

[quote]
But for the most part, I’d figure that out the same way you figured out allowing more fat gain ensures the most muscular progress. Personal experience. [/quote]

Allowing more fat gain? That isn’t even the point. It is simply understood that the guy busting his ass will likely gain some body fat in the [process of gaining muscle. No one has said “allow more fat gain” as that gives the impression that gaining fat is the goal…and it is not.

[quote]

I’ve been absurdly skinny, fat insulin resistive, and fairly lean and muscular. That’s where I draw my experience from.[/quote]

This doesn’t explain how eating more causes muscles to starve.

451

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
X, what studies are you basing your claim that tendons recover slower over the age of 35?[/quote]

Go look up recovery time for tendon injuries based on age.

Dude, they teach this in school to earn the degree. Yes, your dentist knows this too…or should.[/quote]

No, I asked you to show me what studies you’ve seen on weightlifting populations that suggest they show the same trajectory as the general population. This is a line of thinking you apparently only apply when it suits you.

For example, runners in their 70s show the same number of motor units as a person in their 20s, yet an average 70 year old shows a substantial loss in motor units. If you had taken a basic exercise physiology class you’d know that.

452

[quote]Derek542 wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Here’s an interesting anecdote:

George Leeman is an absolute freak of nature; deadlifts close to 900, as an example. He pushed his bodyweight into the 400s, lifted huge weights in every compound lift, and clearly put on a lot of muscle.

And yet, his weight when he finally dieted into lean condition was 225-230. That on a 6’2" frame and from a genetic outlier. N=1, but that should raise some red flags about force-feeding and abandoning the very reasonable approach of tracking macros.[/quote]
Question.

Could he have pulled that weight at 225?[/quote]

Well, he sure as hell didn’t pull it at 400…

453

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Here’s an interesting anecdote:

George Leeman is an absolute freak of nature; deadlifts close to 900, as an example. He pushed his bodyweight into the 400s, lifted huge weights in every compound lift, and clearly put on a lot of muscle.

And yet, his weight when he finally dieted into lean condition was 225-230. That on a 6’2" frame and from a genetic outlier. N=1, but that should raise some red flags about force-feeding and abandoning the very reasonable approach of tracking macros.[/quote]

?? He made amazing progress that no one his age had made. How many dieted down 230lbs 6’2" guys do we have on this forum? Hell, that’s basically the size I would see in many NPC contests.[/quote]

You’re making my point for me. He’s a genetic outlier, and yet he falls pretty close to the “limits” being discussed ad nauseum. 6’2" 230 is a pretty similar muscular build to 5’10" 200, no?

454

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

At a point eating more can cause reduced nutrition available to LBM. That doesn�¢??t mean its necessarily at a deficit and decreasing in size.[/quote]

Eating more causes muscles to starve? ? I am not following you with this at all and it isn’t anything I learned in school.

[quote]

Well, in studies with rats, they can either bread or dietary or surgically alter the hormonal system. With fat rats, they can then reduce calories and starve the rats. Some of the rats even on death have more fat that the un-altered rats. With reduce LBM, including even things like their brains. Additionally there are mechanisms already explained for a reduction in the ability of LBM to process blood sugar with fat gain and conically elevated levels of blood sugar.[/quote]

This doesn’t explain how eating more causes muscles to starve.

[quote]
But for the most part, I’d figure that out the same way you figured out allowing more fat gain ensures the most muscular progress. Personal experience. [/quote]

Allowing more fat gain? That isn’t even the point. It is simply understood that the guy busting his ass will likely gain some body fat in the [process of gaining muscle. No one has said “allow more fat gain” as that gives the impression that gaining fat is the goal…and it is not.

[quote]

I’ve been absurdly skinny, fat insulin resistive, and fairly lean and muscular. That’s where I draw my experience from.[/quote]

This doesn’t explain how eating more causes muscles to starve.[/quote]

Way to childishly nit-pick wording and make up things to attribute to me. Il duce out.

455

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

No, I asked you to show me what studies you’ve seen on weightlifting populations that suggest they show the same trajectory as the general population. This is a line of thinking you apparently only applies when it suits you.[/quote]

You are trying to be witty, and it is doing the opposite for you.

Someone lifting weights is stressing their tendons MORE than the general population, so if anything, you would see increased recovery time.

If you alone feel you need a study done on weight trainers and tendon injuries to take that as truth so be it. Go find some.

I don’t plan to spend my afternoon looking up studies for you just so you can pretend that I think the same.

I can show you this:

and tell you to read up on tendon injuries. It is common knowledge in the medical community that tendons take longer to recover with age.

[quote]
For example, runners in their 70s show the same number of motor units as a person in their 20s, yet an average 70 year old shows a substantial loss in motor units. If you had taken a basic exercise physiology class you’d know that. [/quote]

Motor Units have nothing to do with your tendons recovering from stress.

456

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Here’s an interesting anecdote:

George Leeman is an absolute freak of nature; deadlifts close to 900, as an example. He pushed his bodyweight into the 400s, lifted huge weights in every compound lift, and clearly put on a lot of muscle.

And yet, his weight when he finally dieted into lean condition was 225-230. That on a 6’2" frame and from a genetic outlier. N=1, but that should raise some red flags about force-feeding and abandoning the very reasonable approach of tracking macros.[/quote]

?? He made amazing progress that no one his age had made. How many dieted down 230lbs 6’2" guys do we have on this forum? Hell, that’s basically the size I would see in many NPC contests.[/quote]

You’re making my point for me. He’s a genetic outlier, and yet he falls pretty close to the “limits” being discussed ad nauseum. 6’2" 230 is a pretty similar muscular build to 5’10" 200, no?[/quote]

? The kid is STILL GROWING! What limit has he hit?

457

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Here’s an interesting anecdote:

George Leeman is an absolute freak of nature; deadlifts close to 900, as an example. He pushed his bodyweight into the 400s, lifted huge weights in every compound lift, and clearly put on a lot of muscle.

And yet, his weight when he finally dieted into lean condition was 225-230. That on a 6’2" frame and from a genetic outlier. N=1, but that should raise some red flags about force-feeding and abandoning the very reasonable approach of tracking macros.[/quote]

?? He made amazing progress that no one his age had made. How many dieted down 230lbs 6’2" guys do we have on this forum? Hell, that’s basically the size I would see in many NPC contests.[/quote]

You’re making my point for me. He’s a genetic outlier, and yet he falls pretty close to the “limits” being discussed ad nauseum. 6’2" 230 is a pretty similar muscular build to 5’10" 200, no?[/quote]

Son of a bitch. I’m as awesome as Leeman? sweet!

458

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

At a point eating more can cause reduced nutrition available to LBM. That doesn�?�¢??t mean its necessarily at a deficit and decreasing in size.[/quote]

Eating more causes muscles to starve? ? I am not following you with this at all and it isn’t anything I learned in school.

[quote]

Well, in studies with rats, they can either bread or dietary or surgically alter the hormonal system. With fat rats, they can then reduce calories and starve the rats. Some of the rats even on death have more fat that the un-altered rats. With reduce LBM, including even things like their brains. Additionally there are mechanisms already explained for a reduction in the ability of LBM to process blood sugar with fat gain and conically elevated levels of blood sugar.[/quote]

This doesn’t explain how eating more causes muscles to starve.

[quote]
But for the most part, I’d figure that out the same way you figured out allowing more fat gain ensures the most muscular progress. Personal experience. [/quote]

Allowing more fat gain? That isn’t even the point. It is simply understood that the guy busting his ass will likely gain some body fat in the [process of gaining muscle. No one has said “allow more fat gain” as that gives the impression that gaining fat is the goal…and it is not.

[quote]

I’ve been absurdly skinny, fat insulin resistive, and fairly lean and muscular. That’s where I draw my experience from.[/quote]

This doesn’t explain how eating more causes muscles to starve.[/quote]

Way to childishly nit-pick wording and make up things to attribute to me. Il duce out.[/quote]

Dude, YOU made that statement. I simply asked you why you think that.

If you can’t support your stance at all, why even make one and then act like I did something wrong to question you on it?

459

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

At a point eating more can cause reduced nutrition available to LBM. That doesn�??�?�¢??t mean its necessarily at a deficit and decreasing in size.[/quote]

Eating more causes muscles to starve? ? I am not following you with this at all and it isn’t anything I learned in school.

[quote]

Well, in studies with rats, they can either bread or dietary or surgically alter the hormonal system. With fat rats, they can then reduce calories and starve the rats. Some of the rats even on death have more fat that the un-altered rats. With reduce LBM, including even things like their brains. Additionally there are mechanisms already explained for a reduction in the ability of LBM to process blood sugar with fat gain and conically elevated levels of blood sugar.[/quote]

This doesn’t explain how eating more causes muscles to starve.

[quote]
But for the most part, I’d figure that out the same way you figured out allowing more fat gain ensures the most muscular progress. Personal experience. [/quote]

Allowing more fat gain? That isn’t even the point. It is simply understood that the guy busting his ass will likely gain some body fat in the [process of gaining muscle. No one has said “allow more fat gain” as that gives the impression that gaining fat is the goal…and it is not.

[quote]

I’ve been absurdly skinny, fat insulin resistive, and fairly lean and muscular. That’s where I draw my experience from.[/quote]

This doesn’t explain how eating more causes muscles to starve.[/quote]

Way to childishly nit-pick wording and make up things to attribute to me. Il duce out.[/quote]

Dude, YOU made that statement. I simply asked you why you think that.

If you can’t support your stance at all, why even make one and then act like I did something wrong to question you on it?[/quote]

I did support it. You ran off with your Webster dictionary shouting at the top of your lungs about not seeing the word starve in reference to muscle tissue in your extensive medical training. I even specifically defined what I meant on the subject in reference to the training and gaining individual.

You can go back in my post and read it if you want.

460

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Here’s an interesting anecdote:

George Leeman is an absolute freak of nature; deadlifts close to 900, as an example. He pushed his bodyweight into the 400s, lifted huge weights in every compound lift, and clearly put on a lot of muscle.

And yet, his weight when he finally dieted into lean condition was 225-230. That on a 6’2" frame and from a genetic outlier. N=1, but that should raise some red flags about force-feeding and abandoning the very reasonable approach of tracking macros.[/quote]

?? He made amazing progress that no one his age had made. How many dieted down 230lbs 6’2" guys do we have on this forum? Hell, that’s basically the size I would see in many NPC contests.[/quote]

You’re making my point for me. He’s a genetic outlier, and yet he falls pretty close to the “limits” being discussed ad nauseum. 6’2" 230 is a pretty similar muscular build to 5’10" 200, no?[/quote]

? The kid is STILL GROWING! What limit has he hit?[/quote]

If you knew anything about him, you’d also know he’s not natural anymore, so that pretty much disqualifies the above statement.

But as a natural, he was 6’2" 230 lean. I think it’s fair to say a taller individual has the potential to carry more mass, but the point is this isn’t out of line with what has already been stated.