The Body Weight Factor 2

Training
61

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
^^genuinely curious, how much LBM are you carrying Marshal?

I saw the convoluted discussion in the other thread where you said you put on 84 pounds in two years, IIRC, and then some claimed it was 84 pounds of pure muscle or whatever and things spiraled down at that point…

What do you think/know that you gained during those two years? 84 pounds is quite impressive for 2 years of lifting, natural or not.

Can you go a little more in depth about your journey?

Thanks.[/quote]

i don’t know really

i only track my lifts and go by how fat I look in the mirror

probably between 15-20% just from what other people look like
[/quote]

If you don’t mind, what were your starting stats and what are they now?

And by stats I mean: height, weight, lifting strength (“Big 3” if you do those?)

What are you goals?
[/quote]

big 3? what is this the powerlifting forum?
[/quote]

Are you intentionally not trying to contribute to this board in a positive manner?

62

I’ve only done PL comps where only the lifts matter.

In a BB competition, do they measure BF% as part of judging?

63

[quote]marshaldteach wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

All I can think of as a possible reason why so many people seem to be more concerned with the dieting down aspect lately is perhaps the possible rational that it might be easier to verify true muscle gains in a leaner state. Due to the nature of recent threads (muscle gains, limits, insulin sensitivity and gains…) it kind of makes sense when people are making various claims.

S[/quote]

when competing you don’t know their bodyfat either, isn’t getting it measured scientifically the only way?
[/quote]

As far as I know. Which means that going by the mirror, or what someone who only see your arms exposed in a baggy tank top might quickly guess, is far from exact. So guessing too high, or too low is probably going to be off the mark quite a bit. People lie to themselves on both ends of the spectrum, but that’s nothing we don’t all disagree on.

Still, muscle gains in someone who starts lean, and remains a comparable level of leanness are going to appear more believable in photos compared to someone who makes gains, yet possesses a obscuring amount of bodyfat at the start, as well as by the end. At least IMO.

S

64

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I’ve only done PL comps where only the lifts matter.

In a BB competition, do they measure BF% as part of judging?[/quote]

Ronnie left his shoe at home one year so Jay beat him in the BF round do you honestly not remember that it was a big deal

65

In a bodybuilding contest, you are awarded points for being lean. The closer to 0% bodyfat one appears, the better their score. Just because it’s not measured scientifically doesn’t mean it’s not a much larger part of the competition than what you can do on the powerlifts. What an asinine argument.

66

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Just because it’s not measured scientifically doesn’t mean it’s not a much larger part of the competition than what you can do on the powerlifts. [/quote]

So, “No”, then?

67

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Just because it’s not measured scientifically doesn’t mean it’s not a much larger part of the competition than what you can do on the powerlifts. [/quote]

So, “No”, then?[/quote]

It’s not measured scientifically, but it is directly assessed visually in individuals who are generally in a condition such that making assessments of leanness visually is easy to do, whereas the “big 3” are not assessed at all. This is irrelevant though, as your entire argument is a strawman and therefor, fatally flawed.

68

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Just because it’s not measured scientifically doesn’t mean it’s not a much larger part of the competition than what you can do on the powerlifts. [/quote]

So, “No”, then?[/quote]

It’s not measured scientifically, but it is directly assessed visually in individuals who are generally in a condition such that making assessments of leanness visually is easy to do, whereas the “big 3” are not assessed at all. This is irrelevant though, as your entire argument is a strawman and therefor, fatally flawed.[/quote]

Chill, bro-- not ‘arguing’ anything here. I just asked a simple question.

I think an AI or SERM is in order here…

69

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
The more I read about insulin sensitivity the more interesting the tale becomes! This is actually not understood nearly as well as I had imagined it to be.

Also, I think X caught too much shit for his views on insulin sensitivity. From the studies I’m reading (including cshlp.org/content/21/12/1443.long) insulin sensitivity is strongly correlated to obesity, but not necessarily just fat gain if that makes sense. It looks like the tie to diabetes isn’t from the fat itself, but actually from inflammation in fat cells due to macrophages once the fat cells reach a certain size (i.e. becoming obese as opposed to chubby). In other words it appears more likely that there is actually a fat “threshold” if you will at which insulin resistance starts becoming seriously affected. Someone bouncing between 15 and 20 percent bodyfat would likely not experience such changes. That is to say that fat gain and insulin sensitivity aren’t linked in a simple manner as one would turn up the dial on a stove, but rather they share a relationship with a third variable, chronic low-grade inflammation, which is caused by your body sending macrophages as an immune response into the enlarged fat cells. The macrophages produce inflammatory chemicals called cytokines. Cytokines contribute to insulin resistance.

I am however having trouble coming up with an answer as to why your body produces an immune system type response to fat cells once they reach a certain level (“obesity”). Many of the variables (insulin resistance, obesity, inflammation, etc.) appear interrelated due to the complexity of the human body system, and it seems like scientists are actually having a difficult time separating out and isolating their variables in this problem. I imagine that when collecting data on the human body the scientists have a myriad of problems with multicollinearity and confounding variables. Never knew there was so much to this![/quote]

Interesting paper, but I think your interpretation of the information it is presenting might be a little off.[/quote]
Care to elaborate? That post was basically a summary of info I found in several different places.

70

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Just because it’s not measured scientifically doesn’t mean it’s not a much larger part of the competition than what you can do on the powerlifts. [/quote]

So, “No”, then?[/quote]

It’s not measured scientifically, but it is directly assessed visually in individuals who are generally in a condition such that making assessments of leanness visually is easy to do, whereas the “big 3” are not assessed at all. This is irrelevant though, as your entire argument is a strawman and therefor, fatally flawed.[/quote]

Chill, bro-- not ‘arguing’ anything here. I just asked a simple question.

I think an AI or SERM is in order here…[/quote]

If he aswered your “simple question” with a “yes,” would you have believed him??

71

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Just because it’s not measured scientifically doesn’t mean it’s not a much larger part of the competition than what you can do on the powerlifts. [/quote]

So, “No”, then?[/quote]

It’s not measured scientifically, but it is directly assessed visually in individuals who are generally in a condition such that making assessments of leanness visually is easy to do, whereas the “big 3” are not assessed at all. This is irrelevant though, as your entire argument is a strawman and therefor, fatally flawed.[/quote]

Chill, bro-- not ‘arguing’ anything here. I just asked a simple question.

I think an AI or SERM is in order here…[/quote]

If he aswered your “simple question” with a “yes,” would you have believed him??[/quote]

He’s a young man of fine character. Yes.

72

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Just because it’s not measured scientifically doesn’t mean it’s not a much larger part of the competition than what you can do on the powerlifts. [/quote]

So, “No”, then?[/quote]

It’s not measured scientifically, but it is directly assessed visually in individuals who are generally in a condition such that making assessments of leanness visually is easy to do, whereas the “big 3” are not assessed at all. This is irrelevant though, as your entire argument is a strawman and therefor, fatally flawed.[/quote]

Chill, bro-- not ‘arguing’ anything here. I just asked a simple question.

I think an AI or SERM is in order here…[/quote]

If he aswered your “simple question” with a “yes,” would you have believed him??[/quote]

He’s a young man of fine character. Yes.
[/quote]

OK, obviously I knew the answer to that. I don’t agree that the intent of bodybuilding is to get as close to or even try to appear as close to 0% bodyfat as possible. Judges look for certain asthetics and even in these forums there’s enough diversity in taste for asthetics that not everyone would agree that 0% bodyfat is the ideal physique. I’ve read in places where folks think that ‘striated glutes’ go too far. I’m not an expert, so please read this as my opinion and feel free to disagree.

The point I was making is that throwing these damned bodyfat% numbers around like they really mean something or that they’re actually used to judge is ridiculous. We all know it’s an individual thing how people carry bodyfat and that at any given point in time someone with a higher BF% could look leaner than someone with a lower BF%.

All the debate over hypothetical BF% is like debating on who has the better penis: toilet paper or potato?

73

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Just because it’s not measured scientifically doesn’t mean it’s not a much larger part of the competition than what you can do on the powerlifts. [/quote]

So, “No”, then?[/quote]

It’s not measured scientifically, but it is directly assessed visually in individuals who are generally in a condition such that making assessments of leanness visually is easy to do, whereas the “big 3” are not assessed at all. This is irrelevant though, as your entire argument is a strawman and therefor, fatally flawed.[/quote]

Chill, bro-- not ‘arguing’ anything here. I just asked a simple question.

I think an AI or SERM is in order here…[/quote]

If he aswered your “simple question” with a “yes,” would you have believed him??[/quote]

He’s a young man of fine character. Yes.
[/quote]

OK, obviously I knew the answer to that. I don’t agree that the intent of bodybuilding is to get as close to or even try to appear as close to 0% bodyfat as possible. Judges look for certain asthetics and even in these forums there’s enough diversity in taste for asthetics that not everyone would agree that 0% bodyfat is the ideal physique. I’ve read in places where folks think that ‘striated glutes’ go too far. I’m not an expert, so please read this as my opinion and feel free to disagree.

The point I was making is that throwing these damned bodyfat% numbers around like they really mean something or that they’re actually used to judge is ridiculous. We all know it’s an individual thing how people carry bodyfat and that at any given point in time someone with a higher BF% could look leaner than someone with a lower BF%.

All the debate over hypothetical BF% is like debating on who has the better penis: toilet paper or potato?
[/quote]

In the sense of general bodybuilding (getting bigger and shit) I agree that the numbers doesnt mean shit as long as the person looks awesome (which again depends on personal preference so who gives a shit)

BUT

The condition the athlete is in at a contest is of course going to affect their scoring, the leaner they are the more seperation and definition they will present, barring any muck ups with manipulation.

BUT (again lulz)

It’s still a personal thing really as maybe some people wont need to be as lean as others to display their physique, I for example am having to get lean as fuck for a physique type comp cause my abs won’t become visible until extreme leanness.

74

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
The more I read about insulin sensitivity the more interesting the tale becomes! This is actually not understood nearly as well as I had imagined it to be.

Also, I think X caught too much shit for his views on insulin sensitivity. From the studies I’m reading (including cshlp.org/content/21/12/1443.long) insulin sensitivity is strongly correlated to obesity, but not necessarily just fat gain if that makes sense. It looks like the tie to diabetes isn’t from the fat itself, but actually from inflammation in fat cells due to macrophages once the fat cells reach a certain size (i.e. becoming obese as opposed to chubby). In other words it appears more likely that there is actually a fat “threshold” if you will at which insulin resistance starts becoming seriously affected. Someone bouncing between 15 and 20 percent bodyfat would likely not experience such changes. That is to say that fat gain and insulin sensitivity aren’t linked in a simple manner as one would turn up the dial on a stove, but rather they share a relationship with a third variable, chronic low-grade inflammation, which is caused by your body sending macrophages as an immune response into the enlarged fat cells. The macrophages produce inflammatory chemicals called cytokines. Cytokines contribute to insulin resistance.

I am however having trouble coming up with an answer as to why your body produces an immune system type response to fat cells once they reach a certain level (“obesity”). Many of the variables (insulin resistance, obesity, inflammation, etc.) appear interrelated due to the complexity of the human body system, and it seems like scientists are actually having a difficult time separating out and isolating their variables in this problem. I imagine that when collecting data on the human body the scientists have a myriad of problems with multicollinearity and confounding variables. Never knew there was so much to this![/quote]

Interesting paper, but I think your interpretation of the information it is presenting might be a little off.[/quote]
Care to elaborate? That post was basically a summary of info I found in several different places.[/quote]

It was also a decent post. I am not sure why it wasn’t responded to in the same manner of attention as it was written.

75

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

OK, obviously I knew the answer to that. I don’t agree that the intent of bodybuilding is to get as close to or even try to appear as close to 0% bodyfat as possible. Judges look for certain asthetics and even in these forums there’s enough diversity in taste for asthetics that not everyone would agree that 0% bodyfat is the ideal physique. I’ve read in places where folks think that ‘striated glutes’ go too far. I’m not an expert, so please read this as my opinion and feel free to disagree.

The point I was making is that throwing these damned bodyfat% numbers around like they really mean something or that they’re actually used to judge is ridiculous. We all know it’s an individual thing how people carry bodyfat and that at any given point in time someone with a higher BF% could look leaner than someone with a lower BF%.

All the debate over hypothetical BF% is like debating on who has the better penis: toilet paper or potato?
[/quote]

Exactly. It also detracts from the message from anyone who opposes this strange group of people who seem to be in these threads to argue semantics only.

NO, they don’t test your body fat on stage…and NO< everyone at 10% body fat won’t have all abs in.

And NO, everyone here isn’t trying to compete.

76

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

I definitely agree that the end goal is, overall, more important than the middle steps it takes to get there. It’s why basic goalsetting involves making a long-term goal, then working backwards to determine the short and mid-term goals/steps needed to get there.

But I disagree with your statement “working on gaining bodyweight should be a goal in itself”. It’s inaccurate to say that gaining bodyweight should be the goal. The goal should be the goal, and that’s most often going to involve gaining bodyweight (presuming the long-term goal involves being more muscular).[/quote]

I think I specified several times that this is for people with the goal of EXTREMELY DEVELOPED MUSCLES. If that needs further explanation just let me know. It is already understood that the goal is the goal.

[quote]

This could be us misunderstanding/miscommunicating again, but stating “gaining bodyweight should be a goal in itself” could easily be misunderstood as “if the number on the scale is going up, you’re doing good.”[/quote]

That can’t be possible unless someone ignores the following statement of MAKE SURE LIFTS ARE INCREASING AND YOU SEE A CHANGE IN THE MIRROR AS WELL AS THE SCALE.

Let me know if I need to repeat that again lest that basic message be lost again.

[quote]

Instead, I’d say it’s important to treat several methods of progress-tracking fairly equal (depending on the individual lifter’s exact goal): tracking measurements/tape measuring, what the scale says, what the mirror shows/how clothes fit, and performance in the gym. The combination of those will help keep someone on track better than overfocusing on any one of them.[/quote]

Yes, we would agree with that…which again brings us back to HEY, SO YOU ADMIT THAT SOMEONE WITH EXTREME GOALS MAY HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME PERIOD WHERE THEY DO NOT LOOK IDEAL?

I capitalized that ONLY for emphasis…since your entire post seemed to focus on everything but that.

77

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I don’t agree that the intent of bodybuilding is to get as close to or even try to appear as close to 0% bodyfat as possible. Judges look for certain asthetics and even in these forums there’s enough diversity in taste for asthetics that not everyone would agree that 0% bodyfat is the ideal physique. I’ve read in places where folks think that ‘striated glutes’ go too far. I’m not an expert, so please read this as my opinion and feel free to disagree.

The point I was making is that throwing these damned bodyfat% numbers around like they really mean something or that they’re actually used to judge is ridiculous. We all know it’s an individual thing how people carry bodyfat and that at any given point in time someone with a higher BF% could look leaner than someone with a lower BF%.

[/quote]

Well conditioning is actually one of the judging criteria in a bodybuiling comp which is directly linked to BF levels.

At a top pro comp, everyone is already insanely lean so even if BF was a criteria, all competitors would be around 5% anyway and there would be very little differentiation. “Conditioning” comes in when you are splitting hairs (which you have to at the top level). This is when “striated glutes” “film of water in the lower back” and these kind of statements come up. There is a massive element of drug manipulation and genetics at this point too obviously.

But minute differences in fat levels plays the major part. No one is trying to get to 0% BF but all things being equal the competitor with the best conditioning is going to win.

Also with regards to BF not meaning anything cos people carry fat differently so one could look leaner while carrying more fat than someone else. This is only reallly true if neither person is actually lean. Maybe if both are between mid teens and up levels of BF it would be difficult to judge differences, but if you actually are lean you will look lean it’s as simple as that. No one who is a true 8-10% BF is going to look like they are carrying more fat than someone 15-18% regardless of how they are “carrying” their fat.

78

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
As a general comment, I’m very hesitant to post in this forum. It seems to have become X vs the World and the World vs. X, and, frankly, that sucks.[/quote]

It sure does since nothing written here should be causing it.

[quote]

I don’t think it’s what the crew had in mind when they created it, but if this is what the BSL forum ends up becoming - with every new thread referencing arguments from an old thread and eventually spiraling into “same shit, different thread title” - then it’s going to be entirely the fault of those who participate.

Good threads can happen if the forum members choose to create them. Shitstorms can happen if the forum members choose to create them.

And yes, I now feel like an old man telling whippersnappers to shape up and fly right. Whatever.[/quote]

Basically I agree…and I will not stop posting here simply because the same group of people seem to be disagreeing ONLY because I wrote it.

Apparently if csulli writes the same thing, there is no response at all.

79

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
This could be us misunderstanding/miscommunicating again, but stating “gaining bodyweight should be a goal in itself” could easily be misunderstood as “if the number on the scale is going up, you’re doing good.”[/quote]
That can’t be possible unless someone ignores the following statement of MAKE SURE LIFTS ARE INCREASING AND YOU SEE A CHANGE IN THE MIRROR AS WELL AS THE SCALE.

Let me know if I need to repeat that again lest that basic message be lost again.[/quote]
I may have missed it, but I didn’t see it earlier where you mentioned the importance of increasing lifts and seeing changes in the mirror. I thought you were trying to specifically emphasize the importance of increasing scale weight with most of the gains being muscle (which, to be clear, you did always clarify. I just didn’t catch your thoughts on how the ‘mostly muscle gain’ was best monitored).

As you said in the previous thread, “I see many posts telling people to avoid the scale or to ignore the weight and just look in the mirror. I am just making it clear that yes, working on gaining body weight should be a goal in itself along with making sure most of it is muscle.”

To me, it sounds like you were suggesting scale weight take precedence over the mirror. In an appearance-based activity, I think it’s more reasonable to at least give equal attention to the scale and the mirror/photos since overfocusing on bodyweight as the primary progress tracker can be misleading.

[quote]Yes, we would agree with that…which again brings us back to HEY, SO YOU ADMIT THAT SOMEONE WITH EXTREME GOALS MAY HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME PERIOD WHERE THEY DO NOT LOOK IDEAL?

I capitalized that ONLY for emphasis…since your entire post seemed to focus on everything but that.[/quote]
I focused on everything but that? Man, pretty much my first sentence in this thread was: “I definitely agree that the end goal is, overall, more important than the middle steps it takes to get there.” Guess we miscommunicated again.

If I have to say it word for word, then okay yes, someone who wants to make “extreme progress” in the long-term (however the individual defines that) will probably spend time during those short and mid-term steps looking “not ideal” (however the individual defines that), before eventually reaching their goal.

And now, as before, I’m pretty sure I’m tapping out of this thread. It’s not a knock on any participants. It’s an energy and sanity-saving measure on my part.

80

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

I may have missed it, but I didn’t see it earlier where you mentioned the importance of increasing lifts and seeing changes in the mirror. I thought you were trying to specifically emphasize the importance of increasing scale weight with most of the gains being muscle (which, to be clear, you did always clarify. I just didn’t catch your thoughts on how the ‘mostly muscle gain’ was best monitored).[/quote]

That may be…but I have written about that for ten years so it does strike me as strange you missed that completely and thought the idea was body weight alone as if all fat was ok.

[quote]

As you said in the previous thread, “I see many posts telling people to avoid the scale or to ignore the weight and just look in the mirror. I am just making it clear that yes, working on gaining body weight should be a goal in itself along with making sure most of it is muscle.”

To me, it sounds like you were suggesting scale weight take precedence over the mirror.[/quote]

I would say they are pretty much equal along with increasing lifts.

I am saying I have seen people specifically tell NEWBS to ignore the scale. This is wrong…yet it seemed no one had a problem with it when it was stated.

They seem to have much problem with this though.

[quote]
I focused on everything but that? Man, pretty much my first sentence in this thread was: “I definitely agree that the end goal is, overall, more important than the middle steps it takes to get there.” Guess we miscommunicated again.

If I have to say it word for word, then okay yes, someone who wants to make “extreme progress” in the long-term (however the individual defines that) will probably spend time during those short and mid-term steps looking “not ideal” (however the individual defines that), before eventually reaching their goal.[/quote]

Which is the nly point I was making…yet I see many people telling newsb the focus should be on keeping all abs year round and NOT that. Can you see the problem with that now?