The Body Weight Factor

Training
941

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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 means they made no changes to body comp?

Further, does this mean it can’t be attributed to technique?[/quote]

So they lost fat, got stronger, and gained more muscle? Maybe you should try it.

942

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

Powerlifters eat a few specific meals before a meet to increase water retention, which results in BW gain, to improve lifts. This is a short term technique that would have nothing to do with body comp or technique.

943

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

OK…so if you didn’t get that analogy at all, I am not sure why you want a discussion.

To make it clear for you, no specifics of that man were even posted, not his weight, his daily activity or his routine. One man eating Twinkies and seeing positive changes to blood work does not mean that Twinkies are safe or that simply losing fat is all it takes.

Once again, hearsay about one man now counts as a study?

944

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

Once again, hearsay about one man now counts as a study?[/quote]

Plenty of studies are accepted without use of a double blind placebo test.

945

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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 means they made no changes to body comp?

Further, does this mean it can’t be attributed to technique?[/quote]

So they lost fat, got stronger, and gained more muscle? Maybe you should try it.[/quote]

Are you answering yourself?

Uh, yeah, that would be the answer. They gained muscle and lost fat and/or l;earned the movement better.

I guess that means you agree that strength gains usually mean more muscle?

Uh, thank you?

946

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

OK…so if you didn’t get that analogy at all, I am not sure why you want a discussion.

To make it clear for you, no specifics of that man were even posted, not his weight, his daily activity or his routine. One man eating Twinkies and seeing positive changes to blood work does not mean that Twinkies are safe or that simply losing fat is all it takes.

Once again, hearsay about one man now counts as a study?[/quote]

Don’t remember discussing the safety of twinkies. Honestly, keep you intentional blinders on (or whatever it is you are doing), I’m sure there are many here who actually see that what is being discussed by those who have done it and experienced it and have numbers to back it up are seeing the real picture.

I doubt what you are saying will influence them anyway.

947

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why are you discussing obese people again?[/quote]

Rather than scroll back and wade through the past couple of pages, just let me rephrase: fasting plasma NEFA has been shown to significantly and positively correlate with BMI/body fat percentage as well as a variety of other determinants of adiposity (e.g., skinfold thickness, waist measurements, waist-hip ratio, etc.).

There ya go. Have at it.

948

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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 means they made no changes to body comp?

Further, does this mean it can’t be attributed to technique?[/quote]

So they lost fat, got stronger, and gained more muscle? Maybe you should try it.[/quote]

Are you answering yourself?

Uh, yeah, that would be the answer. They gained muscle and lost fat and/or l;earned the movement better.

I guess that means you agree that strength gains usually mean more muscle?

Uh, thank you?[/quote]

Which contradicts the piling on fat for years on end method you advocate.

949

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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 means they made no changes to body comp?

Further, does this mean it can’t be attributed to technique?[/quote]

So they lost fat, got stronger, and gained more muscle? Maybe you should try it.[/quote]

Are you answering yourself?

Uh, yeah, that would be the answer. They gained muscle and lost fat and/or l;earned the movement better.

I guess that means you agree that strength gains usually mean more muscle?

Uh, thank you?[/quote]

Which contradicts the piling on fat for years on end method you advocate.[/quote]

I don’t advocate that at all. I advocate simply working on size for a while while keeping fat in check but not basing all action on a bf percentage but on MUSCLE GAINED.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

I don’t think anyone will see better progress by “piling on fat for years” as a goal.

950

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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 means they made no changes to body comp?

Further, does this mean it can’t be attributed to technique?[/quote]

So they lost fat, got stronger, and gained more muscle? Maybe you should try it.[/quote]

Are you answering yourself?

Uh, yeah, that would be the answer. They gained muscle and lost fat and/or l;earned the movement better.

I guess that means you agree that strength gains usually mean more muscle?

Uh, thank you?[/quote]

Which contradicts the piling on fat for years on end method you advocate.[/quote]

I don’t advocate that at all. I advocate simply working on size for a while while keeping fat in check but not basing all action on a bf percentage but on MUSCLE GAINED.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

I don’t think anyone will see better progress by “piling on fat for years” as a goal.
[/quote]

You weren’t keeping fat in check when you ballooned up to around 300 lbs. And how can you tell how much muscle you gained if you never get your BF% checked? A lot of “big guys” think they are carrying a lot more muscle than they really are.

951

[quote]cueball wrote:
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]

THIS OH GOD THIS

952

I just wanted to point out that it appears that everyone does agree that the original post was right in that.

[quote]Should a skinny newb interested in making the most gains possible ever work on getting his body weight up to aid in strength gains?
[/quote]

It seems we agree that yes, increased body weight does help increase strength so spending time focusing on that mass when the gal is to be the biggest possible seems to be the way to go…

953

[quote]anonym wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I have even more science stuff to google now…

It is nice to see some actual science come out in these debates for a change.

Shame it seems to be getting ignored

954

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

You weren’t keeping fat in check when you ballooned up to around 300 lbs. And how can you tell how much muscle you gained if you never get your BF% checked? A lot of “big guys” think they are carrying a lot more muscle than they really are.[/quote]

You know, good post!

I don’t really care. This is about how I look and how I feel and the way this affects my life.

A number means nothing to me because I already reached the goal of being a really muscular individual way bigger than most.

It doesn’t matter what you “think” or what anyone else 'thinks". I don’t need to know the exact amount of muscle I gained to know I reached that goal.

955

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
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]

THIS OH GOD THIS[/quote]

Best Post

956

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

Powerlifters eat a few specific meals before a meet to increase water retention, which results in BW gain, to improve lifts. This is a short term technique that would have nothing to do with body comp or technique.[/quote]

“Experienced PLers” can use a number of techniques to stay in a weight class and get stronger:

  • often they are getting bigger and so cut larger and larger amounts of weight for the weigh in
  • changes in body comp as shown by resident PLer Detaza…
  • improvements in technique
  • changes to drugs regimen (e.g. enabling them to cut larger amounts of weight)
957

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

I have even more science stuff to google now…

It is nice to see some actual science come out in these debates for a change.

Shame it seems to be getting ignored[/quote]

It wasn’t ignored.

He was mentioning what is seen in overweight and obese people.

Once again, I made the point that we are discussing trained individuals.

We already agree that OBESITY can cause hormonal changes alone.

958

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I just wanted to point out that it appears that everyone does agree that the original post was right in that.

[quote]Should a skinny newb interested in making the most gains possible ever work on getting his body weight up to aid in strength gains?
[/quote]

It seems we agree that yes, increased body weight does help increase strength so spending time focusing on that mass when the gal is to be the biggest possible seems to be the way to go… [/quote]
A skinny guy newb should get his weight up eh. Thanks for teaching us this.

959

LOL.

Claim “what worked for ME” as a viable way to approach gaining muscle for others as well, they just need to try it and see. Without data.

Decry someone who lost only BF and improved blood work as an anomaly, and not to be looked at as a reasonable way for others to iimprove blood work. Even though data was collected.

960

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]rds63799 wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:
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]

THIS OH GOD THIS[/quote]

Best Post[/quote]

Maximum Postus Ignorus