[quote]cueball wrote:
I agree as BW increases, lifts should increase, to a certain degree.
[/quote]
Thus the point of this thread.
if lifts are increasing, it is safe to say some muscle is being gained.
[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.
The twinkie guy didn’t do ANYTHING but lose fat. His blood work got better. Why are we still ignoring this.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[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.[/quote]
But, I would expect to see similar even if significant body fat was NOT lost assuming the person wasn’t very fat to start with.
If I can now ride my bike uphill for 20min without nearly dying as opposed to before, I am sure I would notice changes to blood work even if I kept the same amount of body fat. This is purely speculation but should show you why I am saying that the notion that body fat alone is the significant factor is what I am arguing against.
If you agree with me, then so be it.
[quote]cueball wrote:
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.[/quote]
Also, this.
As mentioned a few pages back, the effects of weight loss on insulin function are extremely well elucidated in the literature. There is very little question that losing weight results in improved glucose metabolism that persists even after the cessation of weight loss. Within reason, it seems that keeping body fat in check is enough to keep yourself healthy once you hit that spot.
In contrast, the beneficial effects of exercise on insulin sensitivity are arguably confined to variable, but acute, windows of time following physical exertion and are ultimately to a significantly lesser degree than what can be observed through losing weight.
Because of this, exercise used to facilitate weight loss might influence the degree of insulin sensitivity seen at the end of the trial, but this would be transient (maintenance of “peak sensitivity” would be contingent upon continuation of voluntary physical activity).
If the argument is that people who lose fat have better insulin sensitivity because moving about in daily (non-exercise) activities is suddenly less effort-intensive, then it seems silly to credit increased activity for that improvement without going (cue inception theme) just a little bit deeper and asking WHY these people actually find these commonplace movements/activities less exhausting now.
So, now we know that losing fat both DIRECTLY results in improved insulin sensitivity and, additionally, has positive INDIRECT effects on it as well by promoting increased physical activity through various mechanisms (lower BP, less achy joints, better relative strength, etc).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
I agree as BW increases, lifts should increase, to a certain degree.
[/quote]
Thus the point of this thread.
if lifts are increasing, it is safe to say some muscle is being gained.[/quote]
Nope. Many have said powerlifters increase fat mass for the sole purpose of increasing lifts.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
I agree as BW increases, lifts should increase, to a certain degree.
[/quote]
Thus the point of this thread.
if lifts are increasing, it is safe to say some muscle is being gained.[/quote]
Nope. Many have said powerlifters increase fat mass for the sole purpose of increasing lifts.[/quote]
Uh…then you agree with me.
Then why think that body mass gain alone does NOT aid in gaining muscle mass at all if it helps in strength gains?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is purely speculation but should show you why I am saying that the notion that body fat alone is the significant factor is what I am arguing against.[/quote]
Again, the only thing the twinkie guy did was lose fat. His blood work improved. Wanna argue against that? I’d like to see what you have to say, since you claim BF loss alone isn’t a significant factor.
Hm i think the fat gain helps powerlifters to get better leverages. However i think CT once talked about a study that sumo wrestlers carry more muscles than bodybuilders, so perhaps you are right. Not sure where i read that post of him.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
I agree as BW increases, lifts should increase, to a certain degree.
[/quote]
Thus the point of this thread.
if lifts are increasing, it is safe to say some muscle is being gained.[/quote]
Nope. Many have said powerlifters increase fat mass for the sole purpose of increasing lifts.[/quote]
Uh…then you agree with me.[/quote]
Uh…you said muscle is being gained. I showed how lifts can go up just with fat gain. So uh…no I don’t agree.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Then why think that body mass gain alone does NOT aid in gaining muscle mass at all if it helps in strength gains?[/quote]
Because those same people have shown that as soon as the fat comes back off, the lift goes back down.
[quote]Mr.Jeannay wrote:
Hm i think the fat gain helps powerlifters to get better leverages. However i think CT once talked about a study that sumo wrestlers carry more muscles than bodybuilders, so perhaps you are right. Not sure where i read that post of him.[/quote]
Yes, that is because as the human body gained body fat, it also gains some lean body mass along with it…even in obese people. Have you seen the calves on some of them?
Simply put, if me getting to a certain weight helped me bench press or squat more, that alone means more muscle mass.
That is the support for doing things a certain way when the goal is all out mass gain.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Uh…you said muscle is being gained. I showed how lifts can go up just with fat gain. So uh…no I don’t agree.
[/quote]
? If you gain strength, in most people that means some sort of muscle gain unless you are just learning a movement.
[quote]Professor X wrote:]
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.[/quote]
Who is ‘we’, exactly?
The people who have pointed out time and again in various studies the inverse correlation between fasting plasma non-esterified fatty acids (NEFAs) and insulin sensitivity? The people who mention that AND go on to mention that the level of intracellular triglycerides is, more often than not, significantly increased in both muscle and liver tissues in overweight/obese individuals, likely the result of increased deposition of NEFA in those tissues?
Remember that excess intracellular NEFAs have been demonstrated to overwhelm the fatty acid oxidation pathways and create intermediates (e.g., DAG and ceramide) that cause abnormal phsophorylation of the insulin receptor and its proteins (thereby attenuating insulin sensitivity).
Keep in mind that this attenuated insulin sensitivity leads to increased gluconeogenesis (as the hepatic enzyme responsible for initiating glucose production – some carboxylkinase – is now less responsive to the inhibitory effects of insulin). As well, these elevated NEFAs compete with glucose for oxidation, which results in feedback inhibition of glycolytic enzymes and ultimately exacerbates the existing glucose imbalance… perpetuating the cycle.
We’ve already discussed adipokines, so if you want we can move on to inflammation, PPARy or any of the other studies “we” have read on the subject.
edit: shout out to whoever mentioned visceral fat earlier: centralized adipose tissue is typically considered to be more lipolytic (so to speak) than that located peripherally, which could possibly explain why this pattern of fat distribution is such a bummer.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Uh…you said muscle is being gained. I showed how lifts can go up just with fat gain. So uh…no I don’t agree.
[/quote]
? If you gain strength, in most people that means some sort of muscle gain unless you are just learning a movement.[/quote]
Please reference the second part of the post you quoted, but left out.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Uh…you said muscle is being gained. I showed how lifts can go up just with fat gain. So uh…no I don’t agree.
[/quote]
? If you gain strength, in most people that means some sort of muscle gain unless you are just learning a movement.[/quote]
Then how do you explain experienced powerlifters who increase their total while staying in the same weight class?
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Uh…you said muscle is being gained. I showed how lifts can go up just with fat gain. So uh…no I don’t agree.
[/quote]
? If you gain strength, in most people that means some sort of muscle gain unless you are just learning a movement.[/quote]
Then how do you explain experienced powerlifters who increase their total while staying in the same weight class?[/quote]
Voodoo/Vodou/Aliens
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is purely speculation but should show you why I am saying that the notion that body fat alone is the significant factor is what I am arguing against.[/quote]
Again, the only thing the twinkie guy did was lose fat. His blood work improved. Wanna argue against that? I’d like to see what you have to say, since you claim BF loss alone isn’t a significant factor.[/quote]
I knew an old woman who lived to 112 who smoked daily.
This means cigarettes are safe.
Oh wait…the results of one human don’t prove anything especially when it is hearsay and no study was posted or blood work or dates or names or anything else.
It would be nice to have a conversation where all points are addressed, even those that may not fit into someone’s view.
For instance: the twinkie guy did nothing else but lose fat. His blood work improved. Showing BF to be a major factor.
Otherwise, it would seem that some here who cry about staying on topic and having an actual debate, are being dis-ingenuous.
[quote]anonym wrote:
The people who have pointed out time and again in various studies the inverse correlation between fasting plasma non-esterified fatty acids (NEFAs) and insulin sensitivity? The people who mention that AND go on to mention that the level of intracellular triglycerides is, more often than not, significantly increased in both muscle and liver tissues in overweight/obese individuals, likely the result of increased deposition of NEFA in those tissues?[/quote]
Why are you discussing obese people again?
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Uh…you said muscle is being gained. I showed how lifts can go up just with fat gain. So uh…no I don’t agree.
[/quote]
? If you gain strength, in most people that means some sort of muscle gain unless you are just learning a movement.[/quote]
Then how do you explain experienced powerlifters who increase their total while staying in the same weight class?[/quote]
Does staying in a weight class mean they made no changes to body comp?
Further, does this mean it can’t be attributed to technique?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is purely speculation but should show you why I am saying that the notion that body fat alone is the significant factor is what I am arguing against.[/quote]
Again, the only thing the twinkie guy did was lose fat. His blood work improved. Wanna argue against that? I’d like to see what you have to say, since you claim BF loss alone isn’t a significant factor.[/quote]
I knew an old woman who lived to 112 who smoked daily.
This means cigarettes are safe.
Oh wait…the results of one human don’t prove anything especially when it is hearsay and no study was posted or blood work or dates or names or anything else.[/quote]
We are talking about BF loss and Insulin sensitivity. Why are we talking about cigarettes and whether they are healthy or not? So were back to “science papers or I don’t care”? That usually means you concede you have no real argument and are down to blatant disregard. K.