[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
WTF are we doing in here? Seriously. [/quote]
trying to make a 50 page pointless thread so unless you got something pointless to say please STFU
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
WTF are we doing in here? Seriously. [/quote]
trying to make a 50 page pointless thread so unless you got something pointless to say please STFU
[/quote]
I don’t like farts.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
WTF are we doing in here? Seriously. [/quote]
trying to make a 50 page pointless thread so unless you got something pointless to say please STFU
[/quote]
I don’t like farts. [/quote]
ALL farts? That’s a big generalization.
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
WTF are we doing in here? Seriously. [/quote]
trying to make a 50 page pointless thread so unless you got something pointless to say please STFU
[/quote]
I don’t like farts. [/quote]
ALL farts? That’s a big generalization. [/quote]
How much do those farts weigh?
i am jealous of all the t-nationers who get together in real life and eat, train and hang out. god knows i have offered a lot.
but nobody wants to come train with me 
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
Of course it is more complex than just being lean since there is a lot of chemistry(or lack of) behind the scenes. That is not to say that being lean can have a significant effect on insulin sensitivity.
African Americans are genetically predisposed to have a much higher risk of diabetes. You can’t say that doesn’t have some effect even though he was lean.
[/quote]
That isn’t the point. The point is that you can NOT claim that a leaner guy has better insulin sensitivity than someone carrying more fat with that as the only variable…yet you had no problem with that when browndisaster wrote it.
Why?[/quote]
Right. Obviously, it is not the only variable in the equation. However, the leaner guy is much more likely to have better insulin sensitivity. I am in no way saying it is absolute. [/quote]
It isn’t even close to absolute. It is a baseless statement.
Someone who is “17%” and someone who is “12%” are standing right next to each other. You are saying the fatter guy is more likely to have more insulin resistance based on that alone?
That isn’t science and is exactly why I made that point before.
If you were comparing someone who was 35% and someone who was 12% it would make more sense BECAUSE of obesity.[/quote]
Great logical ability!
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
These were your words:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
if lifts are increasing, it is safe to say some muscle is being gained.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I already wrote in this thread that strength can be increased by simply learning the movement which means neural adaptation and technique.[/quote]
Thanks for refuting the first statement with the second.
So again as X says, lifts increasing doesn’t necessarily mean muscle was gained, as X said. He is now arguing with himself.
[/quote]
As a stat major I simply have to point out the logical fallacy occurring.
lifts are increasing = safe to say some muscle gain =/= absolute surety of muscle gain
neural adaptation and technique = lifts are increasing =/= no muscle gains
If you improve technique you are increasing your lifts without necessarily having increased muscle gains, but if you are increasing your lifts, it is more likely than not that you are experiencing muscle gain. That’s basically what he said, and there is no contradiction.
They taught us in school to talk kinda like that lol. You use your data in statistics to tell people something without ever giving them any absolutes.[/quote]
Good point. If you lifts are increasing for weeks or months on end, it is safe to say you have gained muscle. From one workout to the next could just be adapting to the movements. I get what he meant.
ProfessorX, using your uncle who has diabetes as an example of why “how much fat one carries is directly connected to insulin resistance” hypothesis is wrong is a bad argument.
Your uncle likely has diabetes 1 being thin and all and is sensitive to insulin, he just has to take it exogenously. People can have diabetes 1(not producing insulin) diabetes 2(due to insulin resistance) or both but in most cases those with insulin resistance have more fat mass than those that are only type one or have no diabetes at all.
Just saw this gif and can’t stop laughing.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
i am jealous of all the t-nationers who get together in real life and eat, train and hang out. god knows i have offered a lot.
but nobody wants to come train with me :([/quote]
I’ll train with you! You gotta come to Glasgow though
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
i am jealous of all the t-nationers who get together in real life and eat, train and hang out. god knows i have offered a lot.
but nobody wants to come train with me :([/quote]
So drag your ass to New York, come train with me and Brick at Bev’s Powerhouse and then we’ll go to Minado for all you can eat sushi as our post workout meal!! : )
Here’s a pic of my plate from last time we went…lol…
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
These were your words:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
if lifts are increasing, it is safe to say some muscle is being gained.[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I already wrote in this thread that strength can be increased by simply learning the movement which means neural adaptation and technique.[/quote]
Thanks for refuting the first statement with the second.
So again as X says, lifts increasing doesn’t necessarily mean muscle was gained, as X said. He is now arguing with himself.
[/quote]
As a stat major I simply have to point out the logical fallacy occurring.
lifts are increasing = safe to say some muscle gain =/= absolute surety of muscle gain
neural adaptation and technique = lifts are increasing =/= no muscle gains
If you improve technique you are increasing your lifts without necessarily having increased muscle gains, but if you are increasing your lifts, it is more likely than not that you are experiencing muscle gain. That’s basically what he said, and there is no contradiction.
They taught us in school to talk kinda like that lol. You use your data in statistics to tell people something without ever giving them any absolutes.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with anything you posted.
I only put that there because his initial point of increased lifts=muscle gain was posted just to argue against a simple statement that lifts can go up without muscle gain. All the while agreeing with the initial statement he argued against, as is evident in the second quote.
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
WTF are we doing in here? Seriously. [/quote]
trying to make a 50 page pointless thread so unless you got something pointless to say please STFU
[/quote]
hahahah
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
Good point. If you lifts are increasing for weeks or months on end, it is safe to say you have gained muscle. From one workout to the next could just be adapting to the movements. I get what he meant.[/quote]
I am sure most here got what I meant.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
ProfessorX, using your uncle who has diabetes as an example of why “how much fat one carries is directly connected to insulin resistance” hypothesis is wrong is a bad argument.
Your uncle likely has diabetes 1 being thin and all and is sensitive to insulin, he just has to take it exogenously. [/quote]
You assumed quite a bit. I already wrote that he was diagnosed with it late. He never had diabetes until after age 50. Why would you assume he had diabetes 1 from birth from what I wrote?
I was simply making the point that being FAT is NOT necessary to even get diabetes…so saying fat alone is what causes all of this is a huge understatement and misrepresentation of what we are actually seeing in the data.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
So drag your ass to New York, come train with me and Brick at Bev’s Powerhouse and then we’ll go to Minado for all you can eat sushi as our post workout meal!! : )
Here’s a pic of my plate from last time we went…lol…
[/quote]
It’s worth the trip! I’ve gone to both places (it’s technically a full day event) with several guys from the site over the years. Nothing truly makes you train your ass off as much as the thought of a post training all you can eat Japanese Buffet.
(I’ve actually seen several IFBBers and a few top NPC guys there, quite a sight watching that much food just vanish -lol)
S
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
The argument I’m making is that neural adaptation can occur on a movement you’re already proficent at. You’re talking about neural adaptation by learning a NEW lift. [/quote]
Uh, no I am not just talking about that since I mentioned TECHNIQUE as a way of getting stronger on a movement which is the answer to how a powerrlifter can get stronger without muscle gain on a movement he already knows.
I am not sure why I need to write all of this out each time just so no one comes up and acts like you are now.
The nitpicking is a tad ridiculous. You would think I was speaking to a room full of newbs the way you demand each aspect be spelled out just so you can’t find more to complain about.
[quote]
Are you arguing that you cannot make neural adaptations by doing a movement you’re already proficient at? [/quote]
No.
[quote]
Are you arguing that someone cannot get stronger via neural adaptations without learning a new lift? [/quote]
No.
[quote]
RE: body weight gain.
Are you arguing that gaining PURE FAT (on top of whatever LBM/fat mass you’ve already got) is not a body weight gain?[/quote]
No.
[quote]
Whether or not it’s likely to gain PURE FAT or not, it’s possible, and it’s still considered a “body weight gain.” Which is what you said will improve leverages and thus increase strength.[/quote]
In all cases, of course not. Why are you trying to make absolute statements like this?
In MOST CASES, body weight gain can increase leverage.
What are you arguing about?
Uh, no, since someone can gain fat and lose weight. That makes your “translative properties” way off the mark.
[quote]
…so are you still arguing that you cannot get stronger without gaining muscle? [/quote]
It is possible to get stronger without gaining muscle due to leverage changes and technique which you just explained.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
So drag your ass to New York, come train with me and Brick at Bev’s Powerhouse and then we’ll go to Minado for all you can eat sushi as our post workout meal!! : )
Here’s a pic of my plate from last time we went…lol…
[/quote]
It’s worth the trip! I’ve gone to both places (it’s technically a full day event) with several guys from the site over the years. Nothing truly makes you train your ass off as much as the thought of a post training all you can eat Japanese Buffet.
(I’ve actually seen several IFBBers and a few top NPC guys there, quite a sight watching that much food just vanish -lol)
S
[/quote]
Those poor restaurant owners…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
ProfessorX, using your uncle who has diabetes as an example of why “how much fat one carries is directly connected to insulin resistance” hypothesis is wrong is a bad argument.
Your uncle likely has diabetes 1 being thin and all and is sensitive to insulin, he just has to take it exogenously. [/quote]
You assumed quite a bit. I already wrote that he was diagnosed with it late. He never had diabetes until after age 50. Why would you assume he had diabetes 1 from birth from what I wrote?
I was simply making the point that being FAT is NOT necessary to even get diabetes…so saying fat alone is what causes all of this is a huge understatement and misrepresentation of what we are actually seeing in the data.[/quote]
Who said from birth? You assume a lot.
Also, you’re uncle is a hearsay anomaly. I mean we don’t have any stats or data about him so how are we supposed to accept him as an example to prove your point. Just as you said about the Twinkie guy.
What’s good for the goose…