[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Uh Heavy now I am confused.
What is your stance on all this?[/quote]
I would like to know as well. He just seems upset for no reason.
I mean you can just look at George’s youtube channel. He’s got posing vids of him pretty shredded at around 300lbs. To my knowledge after his immense bulk he never got anywhere remotely near 230 lol. I mean fucking look at a picture of the guy next to Brandon Lilly and the Lilliebrodge family; he is motherfucking gargantuan.
[quote]HeavyTriple 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]
Excuse me, 235.
[/quote]
The only fact that anyone has regarding Leeman is that he worked his weight WAAY up (fat and all), then worked down to 235.
That’s what he did.
No one can say if he would have hit those same strength and ‘size at 235’ numbers if he only worked up.
As entertaining as the discussion is, that fact remains.
He was never stuck at 400. It was a moment in time. A means to an end.
Place Leeman in the column of “Got really big (fat and all), then worked down”. He’s certainly not alone in that column, whether that’s the ‘right way’ or the ‘best way’ or the ‘wrong way’, it’s just what he and many have done.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.
“BAD SCIENCE”
It doesn’t. It just points out how asinine it is to use some arbitrary cutoff to justify dreamer bulks when the measurable difference isn’t actually that significant.
Ummm, yes, actually it does. This is an area where you don’t seem to understand what science is. Suggest =/= prove. It means exactly what it you’d think it means. Those data suggest that exercise is doing something to blunt the effects of aging. The mechanism isn’t being described, but the data are pretty favorable.
[quote] 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.
[/quote]
Actually, my point was that people who train have vastly different metabolisms than sedentary people…which is TRUE. [/quote]
No, your point was that you couldn’t generalize obese population studies to weightlifting populations. You can’t then flip and say you know anything about how a weightlifter’s tendon recovery changes over time by studies of the general population.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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.[/quote]
I used the word starve in specific reference to a diseased state. An very specifically noted as such. I then defined the situation in reference to the training individual without that word but in very specific terms. why would you insist on arguing about a diseased state while ignoring my application to training people?
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[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[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to convey anger there, man. I still <3 you.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Uh Heavy now I am confused.
What is your stance on all this?[/quote]
I would like to know as well. He just seems upset for no reason.[/quote]
Gotta change direction now since I apparently “made it up,” eh?
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[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[/quote]
I wasn’t trying to convey anger there, man. I still <3 you.
[/quote]
Lol okay I was like fuck what the hell did I do
[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]
How does eating more cause “reduced nutrition to be available for lean body mass”?[/quote]
I’d explain, but generally trols aren’t bright enough to understand.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
No, your point was that you couldn’t generalize obese population studies to weightlifting populations. You can’t then flip and say you know anything about how a weightlifter’s tendon recovery changes over time by studies of the general population.
[/quote]
Uh, I’m not just using studies. I am using the years of education I have and my personal experience since they DO teach this in school. I didn’t even present any studies…and no offense, but Derek is a doctor as well and if he isn’t seeing a problem with what I have written, are you saying you have more experience than both of us with this?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I used the word starve in specific reference to a diseased state. An very specifically noted as such. I then defined the situation in reference to the training individual without that word but in very specific terms. why would you insist on arguing about a diseased state while ignoring my application to training people?[/quote]
Then what significance does this have to the discussion if you are speaking of someone in a diseased state?
If eating more will NOT cause this to happen in a healthy individual, what was your point?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
No, your point was that you couldn’t generalize obese population studies to weightlifting populations. You can’t then flip and say you know anything about how a weightlifter’s tendon recovery changes over time by studies of the general population.
[/quote]
Uh, I’m not just using studies. I am using the years of education I have and my personal experience since they DO teach this in school. I didn’t even present any studies…and no offense, but Derek is a doctor as well and if he isn’t seeing a problem with what I have written, are you saying you have more experience than both of us with this?[/quote]
Seriously HT, shut up!
Dentist opinion >> icky studies
Wow holy shit I cant believe George got that light a couple years back. He’s somewhere between 300 and 325 now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I used the word starve in specific reference to a diseased state. An very specifically noted as such. I then defined the situation in reference to the training individual without that word but in very specific terms. why would you insist on arguing about a diseased state while ignoring my application to training people?[/quote]
Then what significance does this have to the discussion if you are speaking of someone in a diseased state?
If eating more will NOT cause this to happen in a healthy individual, what was your point?[/quote]
Funny the next few sentences in that same post I specifically explained the connection.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple 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]
Excuse me, 235.
[/quote]
The only fact that anyone has regarding Leeman is that he worked his weight WAAY up (fat and all), then worked down to 235.
That’s what he did.
No one can say if he would have hit those same strength and ‘size at 235’ numbers if he only worked up.
As entertaining as the discussion is, that fact remains.
He was never stuck at 400. It was a moment in time. A means to an end.
Place Leeman in the column of “Got really big (fat and all), then worked down”. He’s certainly not alone in that column, whether that’s the ‘right way’ or the ‘best way’ or the ‘wrong way’, it’s just what he and many have done.[/quote]
Basically this.
Bottom line, he gained some fat…and lost it. Fat isn’t some end of the game where you stay that way forever. Also, I doubt anyone can look at Leeman and claimed he “failed” at anything.
He has to lose 165 pounds to get lean (with prohormones?) and your conclusion is that is a good thing? Come on, now.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I used the word starve in specific reference to a diseased state. An very specifically noted as such. I then defined the situation in reference to the training individual without that word but in very specific terms. why would you insist on arguing about a diseased state while ignoring my application to training people?[/quote]
Then what significance does this have to the discussion if you are speaking of someone in a diseased state?
If eating more will NOT cause this to happen in a healthy individual, what was your point?[/quote]
Funny the next few sentences in that same post I specifically explained the connection. [/quote]
You wrote this:
Please explain what this even means.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple 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]
Excuse me, 235.
[/quote]
The only fact that anyone has regarding Leeman is that he worked his weight WAAY up (fat and all), then worked down to 235.
That’s what he did.
No one can say if he would have hit those same strength and ‘size at 235’ numbers if he only worked up.
As entertaining as the discussion is, that fact remains.
He was never stuck at 400. It was a moment in time. A means to an end.
Place Leeman in the column of “Got really big (fat and all), then worked down”. He’s certainly not alone in that column, whether that’s the ‘right way’ or the ‘best way’ or the ‘wrong way’, it’s just what he and many have done.[/quote]
Basically this.
Bottom line, he gained some fat…and lost it. Fat isn’t some end of the game where you stay that way forever. Also, I doubt anyone can look at Leeman and claimed he “failed” at anything.[/quote]
Well, he has talked about being ashamed of his body, getting obese, not doing that ever again, and not recommending that anyone else do it due to the large toll it takes mentally and physically.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I used the word starve in specific reference to a diseased state. An very specifically noted as such. I then defined the situation in reference to the training individual without that word but in very specific terms. why would you insist on arguing about a diseased state while ignoring my application to training people?[/quote]
Then what significance does this have to the discussion if you are speaking of someone in a diseased state?
If eating more will NOT cause this to happen in a healthy individual, what was your point?[/quote]
Funny the next few sentences in that same post I specifically explained the connection. [/quote]
You wrote this:
Please explain what this even means.[/quote]
Right after you explain why you troll.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Well, he has talked about being ashamed of his body, getting obese, not doing that ever again, and not recommending that anyone else do it due to the large toll it takes mentally and physically.[/quote]
He got to 400 fucking pounds. I would hope he won’t do that again.
I don’t plan on being 300lbs again…but to say it did nothing to help gain muscle mass is way off.