The Body Weight Factor

Training
881

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
I certainly think it benefits people differently. In the past, I’ve tried “letting loose” for a while and really trying to bring up my lifts and bodyweight. Every time though, My lifts just sorta stalled out and I could tell I wasn’t gaining much more than fat. I thought “eh, just hit a plateau, keep on truckin’ and you’ll push through it”. Never happened and I just got fatter.

I was up to 240 and finally said forget it. I just don’t think my body can go that route. So finally in my late 30’s, I’ve decided to try it the other way. I’ve slowly worked my way through 2 years of dropping the weight and trying to redo my whole approach. I have certainly noticed my body as a whole functions better without the bulk.

[/quote]

I think this quote right here contains a lot of valuable information for the people who choose to go down this road and follow a more “instinct” type training as opposed to tracking calories.

In my experience, as long as my numbers continued to increase, it justified the eating I was doing. I feel if you are bulking, and are not getting stronger, something is WRONG! Obviously to an extent, cuz you won’t just keep getting stronger forever, but if you are adding bodyweight, you SHOULD be getting stronger.

I mentioned my 3/4/5 B,S,D earlier in this thread. I did this at a bodyweight of about 210. I was bulking from 155, and was very happy with my progress, and never felt I added much bodyfat at all. My avi is roughly from around that time.

I then increased my bodyweight to 225-230, while not only getting stronger, but getting weaker!! I should have knew right then and there that something was wrong, and pumped the breaks.(Most of this tho was cuz of factors outside training, gf, partying, etc.)

We all know we dont gain in a linear fashion forever, and this is the perfect time to stop and re-assess the current plan, maybe focusing on a bit of recomp, or maybe even just maintaining, before continuing to bulk, and then realizing, uh-oh, I’m big/fat and still weak. [/quote]

LOL. I figured I’d get a “if it didn’t work you were doing wrong”.

Many here have been suggesting that after a certain BF% , your body doesn’t add muscle as efficiently. Some require being leaner for that to be more effective. I listened for years to the preaching about set points, gaining more than necessary to force your body to accept a heavier weight, etc.

I don’t think that method was right for me. Now, people are saying there is a better way to go about it for some. We’ll see.

882

717×960 83.9 KB

As a reference, this is me at about 225, first bloodwork was leaned out to 220, 5 pounds of fat loss later. I think I see abb outlines…

883

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I never claimed bodyfat alone directly affects insulin resistance.
[/quote]

Then when I asked you specifically if you did think this several times, why not just say no?

Why the insults?

If you are NOT claiming body fat alone does this, then what are you arguing about?

What was the point of your “blood work” then? I asked you if your condition before mattered and asked you to show how fat you were. This qwas asked to establish how much change there was and if BODY FAT was the major reason for the change or the many other variables.

Why ignore that request?

But does this mean you were obese at one point?

[quote]
lol, okay chief. [/quote]

hey, as long as it is clear that YOU are the one hurling the insults and ignoring key points being made.

A person’s state of conditioning, daily activity and DIET matter to insulin sensitivity more than body fat alone from what I have seen.

I am specifically talking about people who make it seem like simply being leaner somehow improves insulin sensitivity.

If your lifestyle and conditioning continue to improve, that is what I would base those improvements on and not body fat alone.

884

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I would quite like to see a rebuttal to all that fancy science stuff anonym threw out if anyone has one. Otherwise, surely that’s the end of this thread?[/quote]

I’ve been doing some reading on all that and, if the thread is still alive/discussion still centered somewhere around that, might clarify/expand a little this weekend. Right now, I have a patho exam (of which diabeeetus and metabolic syndrome are a part of) to not fuck up.

Still tuning in for the occasional intellectual decompression, though.

885

Also, are you claiming all of this change to blood work from only 20lbs lost? I don’t understand.

886

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That is because there is no arrogant hypocritical bullshit here and the only one insulted someone is YOU in this post and others.

Why can’t you see your own actions?[/quote]

You called me a homosexual.

Why can’t you see your own actions?

887

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That is because there is no arrogant hypocritical bullshit here and the only one insulted someone is YOU in this post and others.

Why can’t you see your own actions?[/quote]

You called me a homosexual.

Why can’t you see your own actions?[/quote]

Cause he’s trolling us!

888

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I would quite like to see a rebuttal to all that fancy science stuff anonym threw out if anyone has one. Otherwise, surely that’s the end of this thread?[/quote]

I’ve been doing some reading on all that and, if the thread is still alive/discussion still centered somewhere around that, might clarify/expand a little this weekend. Right now, I have a patho exam (of which diabeeetus and metabolic syndrome are a part of) to not fuck up.

Still tuning in for the occasional intellectual decompression, though.[/quote]

Could you please make a thread on it so it doesn’t get drowned in troll posts?

889

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That is because there is no arrogant hypocritical bullshit here and the only one insulted someone is YOU in this post and others.

Why can’t you see your own actions?[/quote]

You called me a homosexual.

Why can’t you see your own actions?[/quote]

Are you saying being called a homosexual is an insult?

I know I certainly don’t think that. I just asked because you seem to be spending quite a bit of time outside of normal action to respond to me or about me.

It implies some emotional attachment.

If I was wrong about your sexuality, I apologize. I am not sure why you think it was an insult, but be sure I do not think less of you if you happen to be homosexual.

890

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That is because there is no arrogant hypocritical bullshit here and the only one insulted someone is YOU in this post and others.

Why can’t you see your own actions?[/quote]

You called me a homosexual.

Why can’t you see your own actions?[/quote]

Are you saying being called a homosexual is an insult?

I know I certainly don’t think that. I just asked because you seem to be spending quite a bit of time outside of normal action to respond to me or about me.

It implies some emotional attachment.

If I was wrong about your sexuality, I apologize. I am not sure why you think it was an insult, but be sure I do not think less of you if you happen to be homosexual.
[/quote]

You truly are the new Rogue Vampire.

891

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
I would quite like to see a rebuttal to all that fancy science stuff anonym threw out if anyone has one. Otherwise, surely that’s the end of this thread?[/quote]

I’ve been doing some reading on all that and, if the thread is still alive/discussion still centered somewhere around that, might clarify/expand a little this weekend. Right now, I have a patho exam (of which diabeeetus and metabolic syndrome are a part of) to not fuck up.

Still tuning in for the occasional intellectual decompression, though.[/quote]

yes please, we’d all be very interested to hear more about it. Even if this thread has died then please start a new one.

good luck with your exam

892

Everyone remember Mark Haub?

The professor.

You know, that guy who wanted to prove that for weight loss, calorie counting is what mattered most, not the nutritional value of the food?

Yeah, the Twinkie Diet dude.

He reduced his fasting glucose from 94 to 75 mg/dL by losing 27 pounds (33.4 to 24.9% body fat) on a diet that was 60% “convenience store” oriented (the Twinkies, cupcakes and potato chips part) and 40% healthful (he ate one serving of vegetables each day, drank a protein shake and took a multivitamin from what I’ve read).

No other changes, as far as I am aware. Same daily activities he had before, likely the same shitty conditioning at the end (though some improvement is likely simply by virtue of dropping that much weight) and a pretty crappy diet. While it’s remarkable that someone as out of shape as him had such a (comparatively) modest fasting glucose, it’s still interesting that he was able to bring it from “watch out” to “excellent” simply by… dropping fat.

893

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, are you claiming all of this change to blood work from only 20lbs lost? I don’t understand. [/quote]

The claim was that me leaning out increased my sensitivity. I’ve even gone as far as to post several times that it could be either the actual fat loss, something in the process, or some combination of the 2, several times.

And for the blood work, 28-29 pounds of weight lost.

And my diet was never terrible.

894

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

You truly are the new Rogue Vampire.[/quote]

He’s gone over the top in his trolling.

895

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

That is because there is no arrogant hypocritical bullshit here and the only one insulted someone is YOU in this post and others.

Why can’t you see your own actions?[/quote]

You called me a homosexual.

Why can’t you see your own actions?[/quote]

Are you saying being called a homosexual is an insult?

I know I certainly don’t think that. I just asked because you seem to be spending quite a bit of time outside of normal action to respond to me or about me.

It implies some emotional attachment.

If I was wrong about your sexuality, I apologize. I am not sure why you think it was an insult, but be sure I do not think less of you if you happen to be homosexual.
[/quote]

I think you’re trying just a little to hard here.

896

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, are you claiming all of this change to blood work from only 20lbs lost? I don’t understand. [/quote]

The claim was that me leaning out increased my sensitivity. I’ve even gone as far as to post several times that it could be either the actual fat loss, something in the process, or some combination of the 2, several times.

And for the blood work, 28-29 pounds of weight lost.

And my diet was never terrible.[/quote]

That’s good. Were there changes to your activity levels at all?

897

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, are you claiming all of this change to blood work from only 20lbs lost? I don’t understand. [/quote]

The claim was that me leaning out increased my sensitivity. I’ve even gone as far as to post several times that it could be either the actual fat loss, something in the process, or some combination of the 2, several times.

And for the blood work, 28-29 pounds of weight lost.

And my diet was never terrible.[/quote]

That’s good. Were there changes to your activity levels at all?[/quote]

Yup.

898

[quote]anonym wrote:
(though some improvement is likely simply by virtue of dropping that much weight) [/quote]

That is the point I am shining a light on.

I have dropped weight. I ride a bike now and walk more…all activities that would have been difficult when I started and was heavier. That alone can create enough change in caloric use and hormones to affect blood work.

That is why I asked the other poster about his conditioning and starting point.

It isn’t that I simply lost weight. I changed my activity level most of all.

I saw the biggest change keeping my food intake basically the same but adding in my “active rest” like I did with CT.

I have lost weight before and NOT seen the same level of change to my conditioning. It was mostly the change in training that affected my overall feeling and activity during the day.

899

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, are you claiming all of this change to blood work from only 20lbs lost? I don’t understand. [/quote]

The claim was that me leaning out increased my sensitivity. I’ve even gone as far as to post several times that it could be either the actual fat loss, something in the process, or some combination of the 2, several times.

And for the blood work, 28-29 pounds of weight lost.

And my diet was never terrible.[/quote]

That’s good. Were there changes to your activity levels at all?[/quote]

Yup.[/quote]

DD, can’t you see, it was the MEANS you used that caused the change, not the RESULTS of the means.

900

[quote]anonym wrote:
Everyone remember Mark Haub?

The professor.

You know, that guy who wanted to prove that for weight loss, calorie counting is what mattered most, not the nutritional value of the food?

Yeah, the Twinkie Diet dude.

He reduced his fasting glucose from 94 to 75 mg/dL by losing 27 pounds (33.4 to 24.9% body fat) on a diet that was 60% “convenience store” oriented (the Twinkies, cupcakes and potato chips part) and 40% healthful (he ate one serving of vegetables each day, drank a protein shake and took a multivitamin from what I’ve read).

No other changes, as far as I am aware. Same daily activities he had before, likely the same shitty conditioning at the end (though some improvement is likely simply by virtue of dropping that much weight) and a pretty crappy diet. While it’s remarkable that someone as out of shape as him had such a (comparatively) modest fasting glucose, it’s still interesting that he was able to bring it from “watch out” to “excellent” simply by… dropping fat.[/quote]

more anonym awesomeness. Quoting it so it doesn’t get skipped over.