The Body Weight Factor

Training
661

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]
If you’re going to use cows as proof of significant intramuscular fat, realize that as marbling increases, muscle mass decreases far faster.

The fat between muscle cells is again, insignificant. Even if we took a cross-section of your 30 inch thunder thighs, we wouldn’t find visible intracellular fat and freaking MARBLING!

You couldn’t be more incorrect. I’ll also add how this nicely ties into another one of your rants:
Fact: Intramuscular fat gain directly correlates with insulin resistance.

662

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

If you’re going to use cows as proof of significant intramuscular fat, realize that as marbling increases, muscle mass decreases far faster.[/quote]

How much do they bench? I didn’t just use cows. I gave you more than one study showing interstitial fat in muscle. I simply said you can see this in your steaks as well.

[quote]

The fat between muscle cells is again, insignificant.[/quote]

Prove this. You first said it didn’t exist…now it is “insignificant”. If you didn’t even know it existed, how can you know it is “insignificant”??

663

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
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]

Do you have a problem with Stu still claiming natural status and competing in natural BB cos by your definition he is not.

The last 5 pages at least of this thread are ridiculous.

664

it’s not visible to the naked eye!
Yet you claimed you saw it during a dissection.

You are a liar.

665

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
it’s not visible to the naked eye!
Yet you claimed you saw it during a dissection.

You are a liar.[/quote]

Wait…so first it doesn’t exist…and now that you find it does, you are arguing about what I saw in dissection?

666

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

No answer huh?

Troll. I bet you are laughing at all of T-Nation, while your belly jiggles like a bowl of jello. Troll-lol-lol (in the tone of Santa’s Ho-ho-ho).

Remember, it’s only bro-science if it isn’t verified by a dentist.

667

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
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]

Do you have a problem with Stu still claiming natural status and competing in natural BB cos by your definition he is not.

The last 5 pages at least of this thread are ridiculous. [/quote]

Yep.

This was fun. I will see the rest of you later. I have to go lift.

I know I sure am losing much faith in browndisaster’s education of muscle anatomy but maybe I am rushing to judgment.

See yall on the morrow.

668

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

The last 27 pages at least of this thread are ridiculous. [/quote]

I fixed that for you.

669

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
fake strength? maybe not, but i tell you,

me at y biggest ans strongest, 260-270lbs, 60 foot shot put, 100foot 22lb hammer, nearly 700 squat and deadlift, 400lb clean and jerk,

and take you at your 260lbs or so with you hammer strength glory,

if were to lock up i am pretty sure you would get tossed around quite a bit.

“fake strength” no, definitely not, but a very different type of strength that translates much more to real world or sport, yes. [/quote]

The world is a free weight.[/quote]

ummm…ok? [/quote]

I was just agreeing. I meant basically that there are few fixed planes of motion outside of the gym. I guess I failed at being clever.

670

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.

I’ll answer this one again before I go.
You were answered.

It is a theory. If there were studies proving one way or the other, it would not be a theory.

Just like any other scientific theory, it has a basis in known science and functional observation. If the science stands up, it is a valid theory until the science no longer supports it.

Not sure how you see that as “trolling|” but it implies you need to read a little more on this issue.

671

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Apparently CT didn’t know what he was looking at?
[/quote]

After he was questioned about it CT later admitted that you could have been over 22% BF. He never even saw you with your shirt off.

672

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
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]

Do you have a problem with Stu still claiming natural status and competing in natural BB cos by your definition he is not.

The last 5 pages at least of this thread are ridiculous. [/quote]

What…you mean…IT MUST ME ALL OUR FAULT!!

Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.

673

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
it’s not visible to the naked eye!
Yet you claimed you saw it during a dissection.

You are a liar.[/quote]

Wait…so first it doesn’t exist…and now that you find it does, you are arguing about what I saw in dissection?

[/quote]
LOL
It’s not visible to the naked eye, so yes, you are lying that you saw it in dissection.

You are talking about something I never was. I said fat between cells and the sheath. You are contending that intercellular fat granules are significant in fascial stretching and muscle growth. You also kept talking about the “sarcoplasmic sheath,” as if that is common medical jargon. It is not, and that unit is far off from what we’re talking about. You truly were just repeating a muscle mag term. Again, this is showing your blatant ignorance in the subject matter.

674

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.

I’ll answer this one again before I go.
You were answered.

It is a theory. If there were studies proving one way or the other, it would not be a theory.

Just like any other scientific theory, it has a basis in known science and functional observation. If the science stands up, it is a valid theory until the science no longer supports it.

Not sure how you see that as “trolling|” but it implies you need to read a little more on this issue.[/quote]

But a widely accepted theory with supporting studies that aren’t 100% perfectly applicable = bro science… gotcha.

You are trolling, because I don’t believe you are as dumb and diluted as you are portraying yourself to be. You are a doctor after all…

675

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:
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]

Do you have a problem with Stu still claiming natural status and competing in natural BB cos by your definition he is not.

The last 5 pages at least of this thread are ridiculous. [/quote]

What…you mean…IT MUST ME ALL OUR FAULT!!

Nobody has a problem with Stu, because Stu never claimed something that is borderline impossible was easily achievable.

And because Stu is cordial and acomplished probably has something to do with it.[/quote]

One correction…no one said it is “easily achievable”. No one said most people could do it.

All that was said is that people are doing it and that telling people it is impossible while people are doing it will hold many people back.

I gave my stats…and was then informed that I am not natural…which means Stu is not natural either. That is all that was stated.

Most people will never gain that much because most people don’t have the genetics to even build muscular arms over 18".

676

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But a widely accepted theory with supporting studies that aren’t 100% perfectly applicable = bro science… gotcha.[/quote]

If it is till a theory, that is because it has not been proven as fact.

[quote]

You are trolling, because I don’t believe you are as dumb and diluted as you are portraying yourself to be. You are a doctor after all…[/quote]

Dumb? I don’t see anything posted here that shows me to be dumb or deluded. What I do see is you insulting me and no one having a problem with it.

677

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Apparently CT didn’t know what he was looking at?
[/quote]

After he was questioned about it CT later admitted that you could have been over 22% BF. He never even saw you with your shirt off.[/quote]

And CT said that he never says anything is impossible…but that a 80lb muscle gain by a natty is “extremely unlikely”

678

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Good. Get back to us.

I hate cheeseburgers.

My burgers have no cheese or mayo.

Only white people like mayo.[/quote]
How much pure mayonnaise do you think you could eat out of a jar?

I ate 14 tablespoons once.

679

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Good. Get back to us.

I hate cheeseburgers.

My burgers have no cheese or mayo.

Only white people like mayo.[/quote]
How much pure mayonnaise do you think you could eat out of a jar?

I ate 14 tablespoons once. [/quote]

You must be white.

680

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Good. Get back to us.

I hate cheeseburgers.

My burgers have no cheese or mayo.

Only white people like mayo.[/quote]
How much pure mayonnaise do you think you could eat out of a jar?

I ate 14 tablespoons once. [/quote]

I would make it through one before covering the floor in it.