[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Fat kills.[/quote]
Post With the Most
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[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.
Then why think that body mass gain alone does NOT aid in gaining muscle mass at all if it helps in strength gains?[/quote]
The fact that you think it’s “safe to say muscle is being gained if lifts are increasing” is absurd. Maybe your professors skipped over the central nervous system in the entirety of your academic career?
Also, according to you, increasing fat will improve leverages, thus improve strength levels. So if someone were to gain 20lbs of PURE FAT (PURE FAT, NOT MUSCLE. PURE FAT), their leverages would improve and thus they’d get stronger. So what you’re saying, really, is that it is possible to get stronger without gaining ANY muscle.
[/quote]
Good post.
A few of us tried to express this but you’ve done a better job. Unfortunately we’re not getting responses.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
We are talking about making a statement of direct affect on insulin levels from small changes in body fat alone.
[/quote]
Lean 10-15% and full houser 20-30% are very different. That’s not a small range for bodyfat percentage.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
full houser and Doogie Howser are very different.[/quote]
I could not agree more.
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
You truly are the new Rogue Vampire.[/quote]
He’s gone over the top in his trolling.[/quote]
Agreed.
It’s worrying because he either genuinely believes his points are sane and correct or his life is that empty he wishes to just troll people with some genuine insight on matters.[/quote]
Yes, but what everyone seems to miss is that those who still engage him on the same tired old topics appear even more pathetic than him.
Showing the world how weak his argumentation skills are, is as impressive as beating a down syndrome kid at an IQ test.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
full houser and Doogie Howser and Fankhouser are very different.
[/quote]
Agreed again.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
full houser and Doogie Howser and Fankhouser are very different.
[/quote]
Agreed again.[/quote]
Doogie Howsers, full housers, Franhousers, Mousers, Bowsers, trousers, wowsers, dowsers, and Rousers are very different.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Doogie Howsers, full housers, Franhousers, Mousers, Bowsers, trousers, wowsers, dowsers, and Rousers are very different.[/quote]
Indeed. Even Bowzers and Bowsers are very different.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Doogie Howsers, full housers, Franhousers, Mousers, Bowsers, trousers, wowsers, dowsers, and Rousers are very different.[/quote]
Indeed. Even Bowzers and Bowsers are very different.[/quote]
Heck, even Bowsers and Bowsers can be very different.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Doogie Howsers, full housers, Franhousers, Mousers, Bowsers, trousers, wowsers, dowsers, and Rousers are very different.[/quote]
Indeed. Even Bowzers and Bowsers are very different.[/quote]
Heck, even Bowsers and Bowsers can be very different.[/quote]
Wowsers!
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
full houser and Doogie Howser and Fankhouser are very different.
[/quote]
Agreed again.[/quote]
Doogie Howsers, full housers, Franhousers, Mousers, Bowsers, trousers, wowsers, dowsers, and Rousers are very different.[/quote]
Ah!! I’m finally learning something from this thread!
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
full houser and Doogie Howser and Fankhouser are very different.
[/quote]
Agreed again.[/quote]
Doogie Howsers, full housers, Franhousers, Mousers, Bowsers, trousers, wowsers, dowsers, and Rousers are very different.[/quote]
Ah!! I’m finally learning something from this thread!
S[/quote]
You see. No matter how long you’re in the game there are still things you can learn. I expect you to share this chart with your students. Spend a week covering the similarities and differences with a test at the end that accounts for at least 40% of their semester grade.
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
The fact that you think it’s “safe to say muscle is being gained if lifts are increasing” is absurd. Maybe your professors skipped over the central nervous system in the entirety of your academic career?[/quote]
I do believe I already wrote in this thread that strength can be increased by simply learning the movement which means neural adaptation and technique.
I am not sure how that shows anything about my professors since I already mentioned it.
[quote]
Also, according to you, increasing fat will improve leverages, thus improve strength levels. [/quote]
No, that was NOT written. It was written that BODY WEIGHT INCREASES can improve leverage. You will not see any affect like this by gaining fat and losing weight.
Nope. Seems like you didn’t understand much of what I wrote at all.
Why is it when some of you try to tell me what I mean, you get it so wrong?
Why not just quot exactly what I wrote? Why change words around?
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Obesity-associated activation of NF-�ºB heightens inflammatory responses that exacerbate insulin resistance.[/quote]
How many times have I written that OBESITY causing insulin resistance isn’t being debated at all?
Why did you post this?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
We are talking about making a statement of direct affect on insulin levels from small changes in body fat alone.
[/quote]
Lean 10-15% and full houser 20-30% are very different. That’s not a small range for bodyfat percentage. [/quote]
30% is nothing like 20%. You seem to make that leap often. Please stop. One is obese and the other is not.
Someone going from 20% to 15% is a very common change. Someone dropping 10% or more is likely going to see large changes in mobility and performance.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Obesity-associated activation of NF-�?�ºB heightens inflammatory responses that exacerbate insulin resistance.[/quote]
How many times have I written that OBESITY causing insulin resistance isn’t being debated at all?
Why did you post this? [/quote]
but don’t you think there must be a sliding scale? Do you really think that when you’re ripped, you’re insulin sensitive, then you get a little heavier, still insulin sensitive, full house now, still insulin sensitive, then you get fat and all of a sudden you’re insulin resistant?
Surely it must come on gradually with the weight gain?
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Obesity-associated activation of NF-�??�?�ºB heightens inflammatory responses that exacerbate insulin resistance.[/quote]
How many times have I written that OBESITY causing insulin resistance isn’t being debated at all?
Why did you post this? [/quote]
but don’t you think there must be a sliding scale? Do you really think that when you’re ripped, you’re insulin sensitive, then you get a little heavier, still insulin sensitive, full house now, still insulin sensitive, then you get fat and all of a sudden you’re insulin resistant?
Surely it must come on gradually with the weight gain?[/quote]
The point I have made for about 30 pages is that the PROBLEM is making the statement that body fat ALONE causes changes in insulin resistance. This leads to more laymen changing that into, "Hey guys, I gained 5lbs of fat therefore my “insulin sensitivity is worse”. This would be a false way of seeing the data.
I have had several people show me nothing but studies about OBESE people like they can’;t understand this point at all…and after this many pages, it is getting ridiculous for this much resistance to what I am saying.
It isn’t so much a “sliding scale” as it is an entire CONDITION of being overweight or obese.
This leads to decreased mobility, decreased metabolism, decrease conditioning and is usually related to a poor diet and/or changes in training.
You cant relate obesity related studies to a population of people who literally act nothing like a sedentary fat person.
If you gain too much body weight, yes mobility and conditioning can be affected which is how I would view this and NOT just “body fat”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I do believe I already wrote in this thread that strength can be increased by simply learning the movement which means neural adaptation and technique.
[/quote]
So then what you wrote as quoted below isn’t necessarily true, because, according to what is written above, it is safe to say strength can be gained WITHOUT some muscle being gained.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
if lifts are increasing, it is safe to say some muscle is being gained.[/quote]
This is starting to look silly, friend.
In Defense of Fat: An Eater’s Manifesto
by Professor X
highly recommended
[quote]cueball wrote:
So then what you wrote as quoted below isn’t necessarily true, because, according to what is written above, it is safe to say strength can be gained WITHOUT some muscle being gained.
[/quote]
Why take one sentence out of an entire thread where I did already write that someone learning an exercise can cause a strength increase?
You don’t bring anything at all to a discussion but this. Way cool, bro.
What I wrote is a pretty common statement. If you are NOT using strength gains as a gauge of progress at all your perspective is way off.