The Body Weight Factor

Training
641

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

tried yoga, nearly put me in a wheelchair. i think i will instead try 6 months of a cheeseburger only diet and nothing but hammer strength machine training.

642

One more study showing there to actually be interstitial fat in muscle cells.

But maybe when you said there is ‘ZERO FAT’, you didn’t actually mean NONE.

643

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

tried yoga, nearly put me in a wheelchair. i think i will instead try 6 months of a cheeseburger only diet and nothing but hammer strength machine training. [/quote]

Good. Get back to us.

I hate cheeseburgers.

My burgers have no cheese or mayo.

Only white people like mayo.

644

my cheeseburgers have pepper jack cheese, bacon, fresh avacado, and hot-sauce.

645

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

tried yoga, nearly put me in a wheelchair. i think i will instead try 6 months of a cheeseburger only diet and nothing but hammer strength machine training. [/quote]

Good. Get back to us.

I hate cheeseburgers.

My burgers have no cheese or mayo.

Only white people like mayo.[/quote]

one more question, should i be bulking or cutting though? that is, 3 cheeseburgers a day or 12?

646

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[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. [/quote]

I have posted my stats before and was then told I am too fat.

Ct even responded at that time to tell all of you I did not look to be over 20% body fat.

150lbs at 11% body fat equals 133lbs of lean body mass.

I was 18.

255lbs at even 20% body fat is 205lbs of lean body mass.

I know I was leaner than that, but oh well, that alone means 72lbs of muscle gain if you even bring me back to 20%.

At the 16% or so that CT originally stated, that means a 214lbs lean body mass which means 81lbs gained.

Go fig…I either came damn close or did it and I was carrying more muscle at 285lbs.

647

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]
-a sarcoplasmic sheath still does not exist, so yes you were WRONG about that
-you are now discussing muscle fibers and fat between them, we were talking about the fat between muscle bellies and the deep fascia that is directly superficial to them. That again does not exist, so again, WRONG

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, much of the interstitial fluid between muscle fibers contains fatty acids and these would logically be a variable when gaining and dieting.[/quote]
that’s hilarious that you think fatty acids in interstitial fluid can stretch fascia and lead to more gainz. It’s insignificant, so again you’re WRONG.

The study you linked talks about intercellular fat granules. You gave that as proof that you indeed saw fat with your naked eye, between muscle and its outer fascia. It does not exist, so again you’re proving yourself as a man who lies often.

648

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
my cheeseburgers have pepper jack cheese, bacon, fresh avacado, and hot-sauce. [/quote]

Dude, you can’t be fuckin’ with a man’s chee’burger…

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/diet_performance_nutrition_supplements/la_cucina_anabolica_italiana?id=2144267&pageNo=9#2719640

649

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[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. [/quote]

I have posted my stats before and was then told I am too fat.

Ct even responded at that time to tell all of you I did not look to be over 20% body fat.

150lbs at 11% body fat equals 133lbs of lean body mass.

I was 18.

255lbs at even 20% body fat is 205lbs of lean body mass.

I know I was leaner than that, but oh well, that alone means 72lbs of muscle gain if you even bring me back to 20%.

At the 16% or so that CT originally stated, that means a 214lbs lean body mass which means 81lbs gained.

Go fig…I either came damn close or did it.[/quote]

You have admitted to using prohormones in the past. You have not gained 80+ lbs of muscle naturally.

650

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[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. [/quote]

I have posted my stats before and was then told I am too fat.

Ct even responded at that time to tell all of you I did not look to be over 20% body fat.

150lbs at 11% body fat equals 133lbs of lean body mass (bf tested at Bally’s Total Fitness).

I was 18.

255lbs at even 20% body fat is 205lbs of lean body mass.

I know I was leaner than that, but oh well, that alone means 72lbs of muscle gain if you even bring me back to 20%.

At the 16% or so that CT originally stated, that means a 214lbs lean body mass which means 81lbs gained.

Go fig…I either came damn close or did it and I was carrying more muscle at 285lbs.[/quote]

LMAO - are you really fucking serious with this? And CT NEVER said you definitely were 16 % - again, more of your strawman/subterfuge. I do not see CT running in here to defend you - and that’s because he has no interest is ruining his credibility by backing your bullshit.

As literally 50 knowledgable people have already told you - your “estimate” numbers don’t mean shit until we really see what you weigh dieted down. You can keep this bullshit up forever, but it won’t make it true…

651

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
my cheeseburgers have pepper jack cheese, bacon, fresh avacado, and hot-sauce. [/quote]

Dude, you can’t be fuckin’ with a man’s chee’burger…

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/diet_performance_nutrition_supplements/la_cucina_anabolica_italiana?id=2144267&pageNo=9#2719640

damn. whats with you and all the food network type cooking? trying to get your own show or something?

652

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

-a sarcoplasmic sheath still does not exist, so yes you were WRONG about that[/quote]

It is a common layman’s term for that.

[quote]

-you are now discussing muscle fibers and fat between them, we were talking about the fat between muscle bellies and the deep fascia that is directly superficial to them. That again does not exist, so again, WRONG[/quote]

Uh, what?

There is fat between muscle cells. That is what was stated,…so again, if that volume increases, you are saying that this does not increase size?

[quote]
that’s hilarious that you think fatty acids in interstitial fluid can stretch fascia and lead to more gainz. It’s insignificant, so again you’re WRONG.[/quote]

Prove its insignificance.

You see fat like that all of the time also when you eat a steak.

Simply put, you are blatantly wrong about there being no fat between muscle cells.

653

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:

You have admitted to using prohormones in the past. You have not gained 80+ lbs of muscle naturally.[/quote]

very true…but so has Stu here and around the same period yet he is never questioned about it.

654

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But increased insulin resistance with fat gain is bro-science. lol[/quote]

It would be because obesity is the factor, not “fat gain”…or else the statement that “fat gain is directly related to insulin resistance” would be correct…and it is not.

Your “insulin resistance” is NOT directly related to fat gain. If you gain 5lbs of fat you do not automatically have more “insulin resistance”. There are way more factors involved.[/quote]

LOL. okay. Obesity is clinically defined by fat and or BMI. Yes, that is 100% directly related to fat gain. Additionally many of the studies aren’t on the obese.

But ignoring all of that, where are your fat muscle stretching studies? specifically on trained people?

655

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:

You have admitted to using prohormones in the past. You have not gained 80+ lbs of muscle naturally.[/quote]

very true…but so has Stu here and around the same period yet he is never questioned about it.[/quote]

Lol - because Stu doesn’t claim inflated bodyweight numbers and insist that an individual can gain 80 pounds of LBM (as an adult) naturally.

So, in the end, using yourself as an example is null and void regardless of your inflating of numbers or “what CT says” because you can not claim natural status.

656

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
my cheeseburgers have pepper jack cheese, bacon, fresh avacado, and hot-sauce. [/quote]

Dude, you can’t be fuckin’ with a man’s chee’burger…

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/diet_performance_nutrition_supplements/la_cucina_anabolica_italiana?id=2144267&pageNo=9#2719640

damn. whats with you and all the food network type cooking? trying to get your own show or something?[/quote]

Yes. Yes I am.

657

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

LOL. okay. Obesity is clinically defined by fat and or BMI. Yes, that is 100% directly related to fat gain. Additionally many of the studies aren’t on the obese.[/quote]

This is not true. If you gain 5lbs of fat, your insulin resistance is not directly affected.

[quote]

But ignoring all of that, where are your fat muscle stretching studies? specifically on trained people?[/quote]

I wrote theory because that is what it is…which is why no one can say it is “proven wrong”…since it is supported by factual science.

You were just told by brown disaster that no fat is found between muscle cells. This is false info.

I sure hope you spend the same time stopping that.

658

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
my cheeseburgers have pepper jack cheese, bacon, fresh avacado, and hot-sauce. [/quote]

Dude, you can’t be fuckin’ with a man’s chee’burger…

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/diet_performance_nutrition_supplements/la_cucina_anabolica_italiana?id=2144267&pageNo=9#2719640

damn. whats with you and all the food network type cooking? trying to get your own show or something?[/quote]

Yes. Yes I am.[/quote]

:slight_smile:

659

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

LMAO - are you really fucking serious with this? And CT NEVER said you definitely were 16 % - again, more of your strawman/subterfuge.[/quote]

How would he say “definitely”? I didn’t write that or say it. He made an observation from working right next to me.

[quote]
I do not see CT running in here to defend you - and that’s because he has no interest is ruining his credibility by backing your bullshit. [/quote]

Wow…he already did state that in the other thread.

[quote]

As literally 50 knowledgable people have already told you - your “estimate” numbers don’t mean shit until we really see what you weigh dieted down. You can keep this bullshit up forever, but it won’t make it true… [/quote]

That is the point…if you have to be dieted down, then you leave out all of the people who gained more than that who did not diet down.

Simply put, it sounds like you are saying it is possible if you simply don’t care about ever being in contest shape.

660

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:

You have admitted to using prohormones in the past. You have not gained 80+ lbs of muscle naturally.[/quote]

very true…but so has Stu here and around the same period yet he is never questioned about it.[/quote]

Lol - because Stu doesn’t claim inflated bodyweight numbers and insist that an individual can gain 80 pounds of LBM (as an adult) naturally.[/quote]

Inflated body weight numbers?

My pics are right there if you really think these are inflated.

Apparently CT didn’t know what he was looking at?

[quote]

So, in the end, using yourself as an example is null and void regardless of your inflating of numbers or “what CT says” because you can not claim natural status. [/quote]

Cool. That is one reason I mentioned Kingbeef who did the same.