The Body Weight Factor

Training
621

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

oh, and btw, i do not need to add to the “X is a troll” nonsense, you prove those guys right every time you strictly and consistently follow the numbered rules of how professor x argues they posted a while back. sorry dude, truth hurts sometimes.
[/quote]

Truth may hurt…but every question I was asked was answered.

I have a scientific basis for what I believe. I am literally being told things you yourself know are not true…but you ignore that to play games with me?

Why do that?

Why add to what is making this board worse?

622

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

??? i dont have a problem with this thread or anything in it. i love this thread. what are you babbling about now?
[/quote]

Then we have no issue at all…

623

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

i could care less about the specifics of the discussion /debate that led to this great thread,[/quote]

It shows.

If you want an explanation X about why people are not letting you walk all over them like you did for so many years here…this ^^^^^ is the reason.

Nobody has a real problem with what you say, it’s the total dickishness of how you SAY IT.

624

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

  1. there is a muscle
  2. over that muscle is a tight sheet of tissue
  3. over that tight sheet of tissue is a lot of other stuff

if that “lot of other stuff gets bigger,” then the underlying tight sheet of tissue is still small.

this is truth. Epistemiology not even once…
[/quote]

Once again, you gain fat WITHIN that sarcoplasmic sheath around muscle cells.

You would know this if you ever dissected a human body.

I have.

I will wait as you or others complain about me mentioning my education again.
[/quote]
LOL I was waiting for that. I have too. You don’t know what a sarcoplasm is. You are just repeating that because the very real phenomenon “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy,” is a term used often on sites like this.

There is no such thing as a sarcoplasmic sheath. In between the deep fascia and the muscle belly, there is zero fat. My cadaver was morbidly obese and I did have fun shoveling fair amounts of fat out of the body, but none of it came from between the muscle bellies and the directly overlying fascia. You really are an absolute idiot if you believe there can possibly be fat between those two layers. Please prove me wrong with facts

625

[quote]Professor X wrote:
[So far, we have learned that Brick can cuss people out and that is ok…and you can troll a thread and no one has an issue with it.

Could you explain why it is ok for people like you to act like that at all if people have such a problem with the act itself?
[/quote]

It’s ok because you bring it all on yourself. You can be as delusional as you want about it, but no one in their right mind doesn’t see the bullshit you throw out on a daily basis.

You have threads with literally 30 people telling you what an ass you act like, and you simply plug your ears and go “Nope - no way. It’s you! All you haters!” Lol - your level of delusion is astounding.

At this point HT is right - and so are you, from a certain point of view. Meaning that 10 years of acting like a rude, self-centered, obnoxious, shit talking asshole have garnered you a lot of hatred - but it’s not just that they’re all “haterz” - it’s a direct result of your lousy behavior - it is all on you.

Once again - any “hate” you receive is a direct result of close to 50,000 posts of pure belligerence.

626

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

If you want an explanation X about why people are not letting you walk all over them like you did for so many years here…this ^^^^^ is the reason.

Nobody has a real problem with what you say, it’s the total dickishness of how you SAY IT.[/quote]

Please, go into detail about how I wrote something so harsh that you can not help yourself but to enter every thread I start or respond in to keep up this action.

You are trolling a thread meant to help people because of how yoyu think I responded to someone?

Judging by the posts I get about what I supposedly wrote somewhere, most of you don’t seem to really understand much of what I am writing.

Maybe that is why I just got a post relating fat directly to insulin response…maybe they can’t see what I am writing through all; of the noise in their heads.

627

[quote]Professor X wrote:
but every question I was asked was answered.

[/quote]

Not true - you have ignored PLENTY - in this very thread in fact. It’s a regular part of your debating tactics…

628

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

oh, and btw, i do not need to add to the “X is a troll” nonsense, you prove those guys right every time you strictly and consistently follow the numbered rules of how professor x argues they posted a while back. sorry dude, truth hurts sometimes.
[/quote]

Truth may hurt…but every question I was asked was answered.

I have a scientific basis for what I believe. I am literally being told things you yourself know are not true…but you ignore that to play games with me?

Why do that?

Why add to what is making this board worse?[/quote]

please x, this board could be made better a lot of ways, and you modifying your behavior would be a great start. but, it would be far less entertaining. so i say carry on.

you want me to be serious for a sec? ok, well, i think you are more right than wrong on this subject. people should worry more about eating enough and training hard and heavy enough and less about there hawt abds, and bf % especially if they are a noob wanting to get muscular.

some of your specific claims are ridiculous, but to me that does not matter, your underlying point is more right than wrong.

i could care less if it is possible for you to strict db curl 1000lbs, or if a natty can gain 1900lbs of muscle in a year,

the big picture you are painting is more in line with my beliefs than not.

again, it is your style and ego and personality(which i still say is done on purpose for you own amusement) that sets people off.

629

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

LOL I was waiting for that. I have too. You don’t know what a sarcoplasm is. You are just repeating that because the very real phenomenon “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy,” is a term used often on sites like this.
[/quote]

Wrong. We actually went into detail about analyzing the study years ago that came up with that “sarcoplasmic growth” issue…and it is nothing but a rat model written in Russian.
I am sure you can find that thread if you search for it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aja.1000140102/abstract

630

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

i could care less about the specifics of the discussion /debate that led to this great thread,[/quote]

It shows.

If you want an explanation X about why people are not letting you walk all over them like you did for so many years here…this ^^^^^ is the reason.

Nobody has a real problem with what you say, it’s the total dickishness of how you SAY IT.[/quote]

yep.

631

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

again, it is your style and ego and personality(which i still say is done on purpose for you own amusement) that sets people off.

[/quote]

Then they and you need to get over it because I am not here to make you feel whatever way you think you should feel when you read my posts.

I am responding in an intelligent manner. It is being met with less than intelligent responses.

632

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

??? i dont have a problem with this thread or anything in it. i love this thread. what are you babbling about now?
[/quote]

Then we have no issue at all…[/quote]

of course we don’t, i have not had any issue with you for years. it took me a while to realize what you were all about, and i had to grow up a bit, now i have no issue with you whatsoever, or with anybody else on an internet chat forum.

633

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

If you want an explanation X about why people are not letting you walk all over them like you did for so many years here…this ^^^^^ is the reason.

Nobody has a real problem with what you say, it’s the total dickishness of how you SAY IT.[/quote]

Please, go into detail about how I wrote something so harsh that you can not help yourself but to enter every thread I start or respond in to keep up this action.

You are trolling a thread meant to help people because of how yoyu think I responded to someone?

Judging by the posts I get about what I supposedly wrote somewhere, most of you don’t seem to really understand much of what I am writing.

Maybe that is why I just got a post relating fat directly to insulin response…maybe they can’t see what I am writing through all; of the noise in their heads.[/quote]

Well you covered #'s 1, 2, 3, ono your greatest hit’s list.

Classic Prof X “debating” tactics… He will:

  1. Ignore what was actually written.
  2. Question the reading comprehension of anyone who doesn’t agree with him.
  3. Go off on a rant while saying “some of you/many here/etc…” in order to avoid directly addressing anyone specific.

Nice work.

634

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

again, it is your style and ego and personality(which i still say is done on purpose for you own amusement) that sets people off.

[/quote]

Then they and you need to get over it because I am not here to make you feel whatever way you think you should feel when you read my posts.

I am responding in an intelligent manner. It is being met with less than intelligent responses.[/quote]

i will respond to you or anyone else in whatever way i wish to, got that champ?

and trust me, i am “over it”, you act like you really believe you make me angry. that has not been the case for a long time.

you or this forum do not mean enough to me to get upset about anything. just entertainment and a place to buy a few decent products.

635

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

again, it is your style and ego and personality(which i still say is done on purpose for you own amusement) that sets people off.

[/quote]

Then they and you need to get over it because I am not here to make you feel whatever way you think you should feel when you read my posts.

I am responding in an intelligent manner. It is being met with less than intelligent responses.[/quote]

i will respond to you or anyone else in whatever way i wish to, got that champ?

and trust me, i am “over it”, you act like you really believe you make me angry. that has not been the case for a long time.

you or this forum do not mean enough to me to get upset about anything. just entertainment and a place to buy a few decent products.
[/quote]

Once again, good for you.

You seem to be posting like someone with lots of emotion built up though.

Maybe you should try some yoga.

636

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
but every question I was asked was answered.

[/quote]

Not true - you have ignored PLENTY - in this very thread in fact. It’s a regular part of your debating tactics…[/quote]

My mistake then. I would guess literally having 5-10 people all speaking at the same time means I miss some.

Maybe you all should start responding without the cheering section and I won’t miss those intelligent posts as much.

I know I got the one about fat somehow being directly related to insulin resistance…and the one about how no human on Earth has ever gained 80lbs of muscle naturally.

I must have skimmed the other more eloquent posts.

637

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

LOL I was waiting for that. I have too. You don’t know what a sarcoplasm is. You are just repeating that because the very real phenomenon “sarcoplasmic hypertrophy,” is a term used often on sites like this.
[/quote]

Wrong. We actually went into detail about analyzing the study years ago that came up with that “sarcoplasmic growth” issue…and it is nothing but a rat model written in Russian.
I am sure you can find that thread if you search for it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aja.1000140102/abstract
[/quote]
-a sarcoplasmic sheath does not exist

those fat granules are insignificant, they’re literally in between muscle fibers and are not used during weight lifting and do not increase when someone gains fat.

So yes, your theory that more fat → more muscle because fascia is stretched is still BS

638

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

-a sarcoplasmic sheath does not exist[/quote]

That is not the medical jargon for it. Go look up fascicle and epimysium.

[quote]

those fat granules are insignificant,BS[/quote]

Wrong. They are the fat interstitially found in muscle tissue that you said did not exist and asked for proof of.

639

[quote]Professor X wrote:
…and the one about how no human on Earth has ever gained 80lbs of muscle naturally.

[/quote]

No, you certainly did not -

SkyNett wrote:
What’s to laugh at? It’s true - so either post a picture, training history and stats on the natural who gained 80 pounds of muscle (without counting normal, pubertal growth) or be quiet about it.

Don’t point to some mythical, statistical outlier in your usual strawman attempts - post a case study of an actual individual who has achieved this, or you’re wrong. Simple as that.

You couldn’t do it here.

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...ics_and_reality

And you still can’t.

640

Also, much of the interstitial fluid between muscle fibers contains fatty acids and these would logically be a variable when gaining and dieting.