The Body Weight Factor 2

Training
461

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Her wasn’t natural when he dieted down, he used m-drol on his cut to maintain the mass he built natty.

But to address Prof X comment that he’s still growing, he’s also on a ton of shit at the moment too. No hate at all George is one of my biggest influences in weightlifting, just pointing that out.

462

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

Oh, I see. So we’re ignoring that the response to that stress is a stronger tendon? K.

I could also describe in detail how disingenuous it is for you use that cutoff point of 35 and talk about tendons recovering 4x slower, but I’ll leave it at this. That “4x” figure is not some abrupt change that happens, but the end-game after years of declining recovery. So the weightlifter at 35 doesn’t have it that bad, actually.

[quote]

[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.[/quote]

No, but it strongly suggests that exercise completely changes how the body ages. This is a fact you only seem to acknowledge when it comes to fat people and insulin sensitivity. but go ahead and tell me some more about how this “isn’t making me look good.” You seem to be pretty good at that.

463

^^^That’s some pretty cheeky trolling, BTW, X. You demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge in the field of biomechanics as you whined about how dangerous a Zercher squat was and how it was just a biceps tear waiting to happen. Well done.

464

heavytriple you come off as such a prick

465

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

Her wasn’t natural when he dieted down, he used m-drol on his cut to maintain the mass he built natty.

But to address Prof X comment that he’s still growing, he’s also on a ton of shit at the moment too. No hate at all George is one of my biggest influences in weightlifting, just pointing that out.[/quote]

LOL, didn’t even know that. So with assistance, he still had to lose that much weight to get lean? I think we can safely say the dreamer bulk he used was not the best method if the end goal is to be big and lean.

Also, I’m with you. I love the guy and find him to be very inspirational.

466

Wait a second everybody hold on. Since when has George Leeman been fucking 230??? He is way heavier than that.

467

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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.[/quote]

? It is actually WAY out of line for the average person his age especially on this forum.

Unless you can show me all of the people coming anywhere near that.

I don’t see them.

468

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

Oh, I see. So we’re ignoring that the response to that stress is a stronger tendon? K.[/quote]

How does this change recovery time? Have you ever spoken to an older weight lifter about how long it took to recover compared to their youth?

I have.

How does this change the fact that they recover slower?

[quote]
No, but it strongly suggests that exercise completely changes how the body ages.[/quote]

It actually doesn’t. All it says is that older lifters show less degradation of motor units.

We know this already. That is why older weight trainers can still get around better than older people who don’t lift.

Actually, my point was that people who train have vastly different metabolisms than sedentary people…which is TRUE.

469

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

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.[/quote]

I used the word starve to define what you stated. Dear lord, you are simply playing semantics

How does someone limit muscle growth (OR WHATEVER WORD YOU WANT TO USE FOR IT) while eating a caloric surplus?

You made that statement.

470

[quote]csulli wrote:
Wait a second everybody hold on. Since when has George Leeman been fucking 230??? He is way heavier than that.[/quote]

Even if he hit that dieted down, that is still way bigger than most here his age. He now has the rest of his life to grow even bigger whether he uses or not…which gives him way better odds than someone who “slow gained” their way to his size and took an extra 20 years doing it.

471

I would figure a tendon would be stronger and thicker after weight training. Sort of like traction and gravitational related growth in bone?

472

[quote]setto222 wrote:
I would figure a tendon would be stronger and thicker after weight training. Sort of like traction and gravitational related growth in bone? [/quote]

It is. It still takes LONGER for a tendon to recover than a muscle belly from training.

It also takes long for them to recover from injury.

Average tendon recovery time is about 6 months. This is one reason an ACL tear causes so much time out from playing a football game than a bone fracture.

The bone can actually heal faster.

473

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[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…
[/quote]
Damn, who pissed in your post toasties.

Carry on

474

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Wait a second everybody hold on. Since when has George Leeman been fucking 230??? He is way heavier than that.[/quote]

Even if he hit that dieted down, that is still way bigger than most here his age. He now has the rest of his life to grow even bigger whether he uses or not…which gives him way better odds than someone who “slow gained” their way to his size and took an extra 20 years doing it.[/quote]
That’s all fine amd good, but I am wondering if anyone can show me where he is actually 230. To my knowledge he hasn’t been that light since he was like 12 lol. I was pretty sure he stays around 300.

475

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Wait a second everybody hold on. Since when has George Leeman been fucking 230??? He is way heavier than that.[/quote]

Even if he hit that dieted down, that is still way bigger than most here his age. He now has the rest of his life to grow even bigger whether he uses or not…which gives him way better odds than someone who “slow gained” their way to his size and took an extra 20 years doing it.[/quote]
That’s all fine amd good, but I am wondering if anyone can show me where he is actually 230. To my knowledge he hasn’t been that light since he was like 12 lol. I was pretty sure he stays around 300.[/quote]

Hey, these guys make up just about everything else so my guess is, he will be made lighter no matter what so they can prove that he bulked up for no reason…despite being a fucking monster by the age most of these guys are still making newb gains.

476

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:
I would figure a tendon would be stronger and thicker after weight training. Sort of like traction and gravitational related growth in bone? [/quote]

It is. It still takes LONGER for a tendon to recover than a muscle belly from training.

It also takes long for them to recover from injury.

Average tendon recovery time is about 6 months. This is one reason an ACL tear causes so much time out from playing a football game than a bone fracture.

The bone can actually heal faster.[/quote]

lol I don’t even know how tendons came up in this thread…

Ok, so would it be logical to assume that a larger tendon can take more damage and sheer/axial force than a smaller one so less recovery time would be necessary because of less overall damage to recover from?

I’m not even sure I know where I’m going with this. I agree that tendons take longer to recover from damage with age. Everything takes longer to recover from with age!

477

[quote]setto222 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]setto222 wrote:
I would figure a tendon would be stronger and thicker after weight training. Sort of like traction and gravitational related growth in bone? [/quote]

It is. It still takes LONGER for a tendon to recover than a muscle belly from training.

It also takes long for them to recover from injury.

Average tendon recovery time is about 6 months. This is one reason an ACL tear causes so much time out from playing a football game than a bone fracture.

The bone can actually heal faster.[/quote]

lol I don’t even know how tendons came up in this thread…

Ok, so would it be logical to assume that a larger tendon can take more damage and sheer/axial force than a smaller one so less recovery time would be necessary because of less overall damage to recover from?

I’m not even sure I know where I’m going with this. I agree that tendons take longer to recover from damage with age. Everything takes longer to recover from with age! [/quote]

No. Tendons have a decreased blood supply so their healing process is way slower than muscles BECAUSE OF THAT. It doesn’t matter if it is larger. If anything, I would expect to see slightly increased recovery time on a significantly larger muscle because there is more to repair and less supplies to do that with.

478

[quote]csulli wrote:
Wait a second everybody hold on. Since when has George Leeman been fucking 230??? He is way heavier than that.[/quote]

Excuse me, 235.

479

Uh Heavy now I am confused.

What is your stance on all this?

480

[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]

How does eating more cause “reduced nutrition to be available for lean body mass”?