The Body Weight Factor

Training
901

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.[/quote]

It was also a large part of how I lost the weight. Hence, losing weight increased my sensitivity.

902

[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]

903

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

It was also a large part of how I lost the weight. Hence, losing weight increased my sensitivity.[/quote]

Which again points to the conditioning aspect.

Like I said before, obesity and even “syndrome x” are “conditions” of the human body NOT caused just because of body fat. Body fat is not the devil. Your body needs it just not large amounts of it.

When I was moving way less and ONLY lifting heavy, I felt more sluggish, less active.

Changing my training alone with NO change to diet is what led to most of the weight I lost and my conditioning.

Syndrome x is a condition not JUST related to food intake but general lifestyle as well. It is NOT just related to body fat levels.

904

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

LOL. You quoted a statement regarding an “likely” increase in conditioning due to weight loss without any change in activity. Then continue on about increasing activity level to increase conditioning.

The whole point, I’m SURE you know, is that his blood work was better ONLY by dropping weight. With NO CHANGE in activity.

Did you not read what was written, or intentionally get it wrong?

905

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.[/quote]

It was also a large part of how I lost the weight. Hence, losing weight increased my sensitivity.[/quote]

I know. I just see someone that’s trying to find any way possible for it NOT to be the fat loss, and the increase in activity that was actually the cause. Lots of mental gymnastics going on here.

906

[quote]cueball wrote:

The whole point, I’m SURE you know, is that his blood work was better ONLY by dropping weight. With NO CHANGE in activity.
[/quote]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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

Yup.[/quote]

907

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

True, but by increased conditioning I am thinking more along the lines of simply having the ability to move about better rather than the actual practice of it. I looked at a few articles and didn’t see much mentioned, but I am hopeful that a professor of nutrition seeking to test his hypothesis would have the wherewithal/intellectual honesty to exclude as many confounding variables as is reasonably possible (including something as blatantly influential on weight loss as increased voluntary physical activity).

I agree with you on the benefits of increased conditioning vs. simply dropping weight, though.

908

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

It was also a large part of how I lost the weight. Hence, losing weight increased my sensitivity.[/quote]

Which again points to the conditioning aspect.

Like I said before, obesity and even “syndrome x” are “conditions” of the human body NOT caused just because of body fat. Body fat is not the devil. Your body needs it just not large amounts of it.

When I was moving way less and ONLY lifting heavy, I felt more sluggish, less active.

Changing my training alone with NO change to diet is what led to most of the weight I lost and my conditioning.

Syndrome x is a condition not JUST related to food intake but general lifestyle as well. It is NOT just related to body fat levels.[/quote]

We’re talking about insulin sensitivity, not cardiovascular conditioning. We are also not talking about HOW the weight was lost, but the increase in insulin sensitivity due to the fat loss. Please stay on topic.

909

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

The whole point, I’m SURE you know, is that his blood work was better ONLY by dropping weight. With NO CHANGE in activity.
[/quote]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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

Yup.[/quote]
[/quote]

Your second quote makes no sense. DD changed his activity levels, the Twinkie guy didn’t. Both dropped weight and their blood work got better. Hence, fat loss alone causes a positive change in blood work. But I’m sure you see this and are ignoring it…

910

anonym definitely wins this debate
DD and Super Saiyan in second

also a huge LOL @ “ur seriously gay the only explanation is that you want my D” brb that wasn’t an insult bro I have a gay friend

I love T-Nation, you can’t make some of this stuff up

911

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

The whole point, I’m SURE you know, is that his blood work was better ONLY by dropping weight. With NO CHANGE in activity.
[/quote]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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

Yup.[/quote]
[/quote]

Your second quote makes no sense. DD changed his activity levels, the Twinkie guy didn’t. Both dropped weight and their blood work got better. Hence, fat loss alone causes a positive change in blood work. But I’m sure you see this and are ignoring it…[/quote]

Dude, do you know who you are talking to? He’s a DMD; the type who uses a scalpel and sutures on an almost daily basis.

912

[quote]cueball wrote:
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.
[/quote]

I didn’t even mention you specifically in my post? I don’t know why you took this personally.

I feel it’s a valid point I made, based off my very own experience. I do agree, there is no point in trying to FORCE your body to grow, if its not primed to do so. Chances are, you’ll just be adding fat, as I gave in my very own example.

For example, in your very own example, I think it would have been a perfect time for some recomp, before continuing to bulk. I’m not trying to give you advice of what you should/shouldn’t do, but I do feel OUR experiences can teach others who are following the same path.

Do you not agree that the more your bodyweight increases, the more your lifts should increase as well?

913

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

The whole point, I’m SURE you know, is that his blood work was better ONLY by dropping weight. With NO CHANGE in activity.
[/quote]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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

Yup.[/quote]
[/quote]

Your second quote makes no sense. DD changed his activity levels, the Twinkie guy didn’t. Both dropped weight and their blood work got better. Hence, fat loss alone causes a positive change in blood work. But I’m sure you see this and are ignoring it…[/quote]

Dude, do you know who you are talking to? He’s a DMD; the type who uses a scalpel and sutures on an almost daily basis. [/quote]

What was I thinking. I’m just a ghey.

NTTATWWT. Or at least that’s what HE tells me.

914

[quote]rds63799 wrote:
good luck with your exam[/quote]

Thank you, sir.

As far as creating a thread dedicated solely to my ramblings on that subject… that’s pretty unlikely. I really prefer the back and forth dynamic of existing discussions where there are specific points to be rebutted, acknowledged or asserted. With a blank slate, I would feel compelled to make it as comprehensive as possible to cover everything, and after just submitting a manuscript last week (a review article on something super boring), I am still feeling the strain of that kind of undertaking.

At the very least, I can share some interesting studies.

915

[quote]Ironfreak wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
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.
[/quote]

I didn’t even mention you specifically in my post? I don’t know why you took this personally.

I feel it’s a valid point I made, based off my very own experience. I do agree, there is no point in trying to FORCE your body to grow, if its not primed to do so. Chances are, you’ll just be adding fat, as I gave in my very own example.

For example, in your very own example, I think it would have been a perfect time for some recomp, before continuing to bulk. I’m not trying to give you advice of what you should/shouldn’t do, but I do feel OUR experiences can teach others who are following the same path.

Do you not agree that the more your bodyweight increases, the more your lifts should increase as well?[/quote]

I didn’t take it personal per se, but not addressing me specifically doesn’t mean what was written can’t suggest it anyway. No harm, I’m not upset, just expected it to be said, that’s all.

I agree we can learn from each other, and especially from both sides of this coin.

I agree as BW increases, lifts should increase, to a certain degree. You certainly can’t, as you said, force gains in lifts or BW. But at the same time, there were many at the time who, when someone’s lifts stalled would ask “are you eating enough? if your lifts stall maybe you need more cals”.

Time for a recomp would be right. But the mantra at the time was keep the BW so you get a new set point. There wasn’t this other school of thought that none of this was even necessary and no guidance from those who had done it that way.

916

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Which again points to the conditioning aspect.

Like I said before, obesity and even “syndrome x” are “conditions” of the human body NOT caused just because of body fat. Body fat is not the devil. Your body needs it just not large amounts of it.

[/quote]
10% is like 2 months of food. Natural hunter gatherers were lean. You don’t need much.

[quote]

When I was moving way less and ONLY lifting heavy, I felt more sluggish, less active.

Changing my training alone with NO change to diet is what led to most of the weight I lost and my conditioning.

Syndrome x is a condition not JUST related to food intake but general lifestyle as well. It is NOT just related to body fat levels.[/quote]

I never said it was, but it’s pretty clear body fat plays a role.

917

[quote]anonym wrote:

True, but by increased conditioning I am thinking more along the lines of simply having the ability to move about better rather than the actual practice of it. [/quote]

Me too. I get around better, can run up stairs better…but I did not notice changes like that from dietary changes alone in the past.

[quote]
I looked at a few articles and didn’t see much mentioned, but I am hopeful that a professor of nutrition seeking to test his hypothesis would have the wherewithal/intellectual honesty to exclude as many confounding variables as is reasonably possible (including something as blatantly influential on weight loss as increased voluntary physical activity).

I agree with you on the benefits of increased conditioning vs. simply dropping weight, though.[/quote]

Well, most of those studies are done on people who do NIT train regularly anywhere near the level that many of us do.

I noticed the biggest change NOT from just “training” everyday but when I changed the amount of work done in the same time period.

918

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

10% is like 2 months of food. Natural hunter gatherers were lean. You don’t need much.
[/quote]

Agreed…but even saying “10%” is a little off.

Your body needs fat for nerve conductivity along with organ insulation if nothing else. Someone can do fine at lower level;s, but how well they do in terms of performance at a certain level is purely individual.

[quote]

I never said it was, but it’s pretty clear body fat plays a role.[/quote]

Body fat plays a role, but again, when people take that and start saying “fat decreases increase insulin sensitivity” as a final statement, they are not quoting what we have actually found in studies.

919

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

10% is like 2 months of food. Natural hunter gatherers were lean. You don’t need much.
[/quote]

Agreed…but even saying “10%” is a little off.

Your body needs fat for nerve conductivity along with organ insulation if nothing else. Someone can do fine at lower level;s, but how well they do in terms of performance at a certain level is purely individual.

Who said that? I never did. But it’s clear that the lifestyle that leads to a fat decrease (increased activity, decreased calories) increases it. whether it’s from fat lose or the methods of fat loss, I don’t care, works the same either way.

920

[quote]Professor X wrote:

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

The irony so thick, you can cut that bitch with a knife.

You perhaps missed the two almost full page posts by Super Saiyan and Double Deuce pointing out all the shit you spewed at people in this thread??

Just breezed right over that baby.