[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I did not feel like digging up old articles from my closet at the time of making the post. I mean that with proper etiquette as well. [/quote]
I don’t want to sound like a smart ass nor am I calling anybody on this thread wrong, but I’d like to see those articles, or a link that states what you’ve said. Just for my own learning and that way I can take info in on my own so it becomes factual to me instead of somebody’s opinion. Thanks.
Gerdy
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I agree with you Prof, in that I have not seen a large individual become large by eating like a bird. However, would you not agree that it makes this much harder and creates more work, a miserable contest prep, when you have so much fat to lose. The longer you stay fat, the harder it is to get rid of, a la the set point theory. Being overly fat also causes a decrease in insulin sensitivity. I do not think any physique conscious person should be above 12% bf even if its offseason.
[/quote]
Sorry that I’m responding to something that happened hours ago, but after severely obese for 19 years, it took me just under a year to lose 110 pounds easily. I don’t think having fat for three months rather than one month would make it any more difficult to lose it. Just an observation, I’m not trying to discredit or offend.
Gerdy, they were peer reviewed articles my professor had given me two years ago during my dietetic internship in a masters level class called Issues, Trends, and Challenges in Nutrition. And NO, this was not some backwards, fat, mullet wearing, carb chomping, anti-high protein RD.
We went over quite a few articles like this. Honestly, I do not know where the articles are right now or if they are in the garbage since I cannot store all the articles and magazines and books I accumulated over the years. I will email her for the reference and get back to you if she responds appropriately and timely.
Thanks for the decency and politeness in asking, rather than acting like a tall 2 year old having a hissy fit because he heard something he did not like or agree with.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Gerdy, they were peer reviewed articles my professor had given me two years ago during my dietetic internship in a masters level class called Issues, Trends, and Challenges in Nutrition. And NO, this was not some backwards, fat, mullet wearing, carb chomping, anti-high protein RD.
We went over quite a few articles like this. Honestly, I do not know where the articles are right now or if they are in the garbage since I cannot store all the articles and magazines and books I accumulated over the years. I will email her for the reference and get back to you if she responds appropriately and timely.
Thanks for the decency and politeness in asking, rather than acting like a tall 2 year old having a hissy fit because he heard something he did not like or agree with. [/quote]
I dare you to take a guy who won’t go past 12% bodyfat and one that will and see who makes the most progress in one year.
I’ll even go as far as to say everything you learned in dietetic studies are useless. You don’t need science to be a bodybuilder.
[quote]SSC wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
I agree with you Prof, in that I have not seen a large individual become large by eating like a bird. However, would you not agree that it makes this much harder and creates more work, a miserable contest prep, when you have so much fat to lose. The longer you stay fat, the harder it is to get rid of, a la the set point theory. Being overly fat also causes a decrease in insulin sensitivity. I do not think any physique conscious person should be above 12% bf even if its offseason.
Sorry that I’m responding to something that happened hours ago, but after severely obese for 19 years, it took me just under a year to lose 110 pounds easily. I don’t think having fat for three months rather than one month would make it any more difficult to lose it. Just an observation, I’m not trying to discredit or offend.[/quote]
Once again, a well behaved, friendly poster emerges from us. Thanks for your input. How are you, SSC? Congratulatons on losing 110#. That is a big accomplishment.
I am not talking about 1 to 3 months of carrying around excess fat. As CT stated on here many times, ad nauseum, in his articles, lugging around 30# of excess fat for YEARS is going to make it quite difficult for one to get down to a respectable bodyfat percentage when the time comes to doing it. Even people experienced far more than us in dealing with dieting BBers, such as Daniel Duchaine stated over and over that many people, though NOT ALL (apparently Prof X and his peers do not), have a hard time getting lean when they allowed themselves to get too fat in the offseason.
I know many people, or know OF, including Chris Shugart on here, who have complained that they now have problem areas in which the fat does not come off quickly and that to rid themselves of it took much work (8+ hours of activity per week, weight training and cardio combined). Those who stay lean (10 to 12%) have a much easier time dieting (less activity, less hunger, less muscle loss).
I will ask you then…since you lost 110#, a hefty amount, do you have loose skin anywhere? Any problem areas that are now flabby in comparison to the rest of your body? I am asking this in all seriousness. How is your skin tautness and vascularity.
I will say it again. Many experienced men have stated that “champs do not get fat, they get smooth”. So in these cases, perhaps these men can blow up in the offseason and not look like a lop of shit. But in my view, these are the genetic elite, not your genetically average trainee (read: MOST T-maggers and most of the population). I remember I had a conversation with Ron Harris, who is now under Dante’s tutelage, in which he stated that the genetically elite would actually have a hard time getting fat, so this unabashed bulking for most people is useless.
Even Lee Priest, who clearly bulks up to the point of excess, doesn’t even look all that sloppy at a very high bodyweight. He looks clearly bigger, but the fat is pretty much distributed evenly. Not so for the average folks that I have seen.
And this is WHY I make generalities in my statements. But, if we need to get into specifics, I am fine with that also.
[quote]Fulmen wrote:
Bricknyce wrote:
Gerdy, they were peer reviewed articles my professor had given me two years ago during my dietetic internship in a masters level class called Issues, Trends, and Challenges in Nutrition. And NO, this was not some backwards, fat, mullet wearing, carb chomping, anti-high protein RD.
We went over quite a few articles like this. Honestly, I do not know where the articles are right now or if they are in the garbage since I cannot store all the articles and magazines and books I accumulated over the years. I will email her for the reference and get back to you if she responds appropriately and timely.
Thanks for the decency and politeness in asking, rather than acting like a tall 2 year old having a hissy fit because he heard something he did not like or agree with.
I dare you to take a guy who won’t go past 12% bodyfat and one that will and see who makes the most progress in one year.
I’ll even go as far as to say everything you learned in dietetic studies are useless. You don’t need science to be a bodybuilder.[/quote]
I happen to be one of the people on this forum stating that we have an overabundance of overeducated intellectuals running around! I do feel we can draw some information from human metabolism.
No shit, one does not need science to be a bodybuilder, something I stated over and over and over here. Thanks for reading my posts.
And yeah, everything I learned was useless in dietetics. You are a very logical person. I mean, we would have all the supplements and knowledge and availability of foods that you and I eat if we did away with all the food scientists and technologists, the USDA (responsible for commerce of meat, poultry and eggs), the US Department of Commerce (responsible for commerce of fish), the CDC (food hazard and security regulations). I mean our society would be so great without these organizations, much of which are comprised of nutrition and science professionals. And I mean, you would have all of your nutrients on hand because you are such a skilled agriculuralist and hunter as well. You’d also have your nice protein powder because you know how to make it on your own. Also how to isolate creatine from meat as well.
Yeah, I learned a lot of useless stuff in school. 
So did all those professionals who make sure you get your food and supplements. They all figured out how the body works and how to obtain wholesome food and create supplements from all of their useless knowledge.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Gerdy, they were peer reviewed articles my professor had given me two years ago during my dietetic internship in a masters level class called Issues, Trends, and Challenges in Nutrition. And NO, this was not some backwards, fat, mullet wearing, carb chomping, anti-high protein RD.
We went over quite a few articles like this. Honestly, I do not know where the articles are right now or if they are in the garbage since I cannot store all the articles and magazines and books I accumulated over the years. I will email her for the reference and get back to you if she responds appropriately and timely.
Thanks for the decency and politeness in asking, rather than acting like a tall 2 year old having a hissy fit because he heard something he did not like or agree with. [/quote]
Right on man it’s cool. Hopefully I will get a chance to take the class since I’m planning on getting the highest level of education I can with Exercise Physiology/Nutrition.
Everybody is different and when dealing with the human body things seem to be ever-changing. I don’t argue with somebody unless I know for certain I am 100% correct, and its set in stone that it’s 100% proven. On this topic I don’t know much about it since I never go above about 8% anyways due to genetics lol.
If I disagree with somebody I will back myself up with knowledge and reference and when I have a question answered I’d prefer it be referenced as well. This being my reason for asking. lol thanks tho man, no rush or worries if you can’t find the source.
Take it easy
Gerdy
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
NOT ALL (apparently Prof X and his peers do not), have a hard time getting lean when they allowed themselves to get too fat in the offseason.[/quote]
Probably because we DONT ALLOW OURSELVES TO GET TOO FAT.
Fulem,
Point taken.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Once again, a well behaved, friendly poster emerges from us. Thanks for your input. How are you, SSC? Congratulatons on losing 110#. That is a big accomplishment.
I am not talking about 1 to 3 months of carrying around excess fat. As CT stated on here many times, ad nauseum, in his articles, lugging around 30# of excess fat for YEARS is going to make it quite difficult for one to get down to a respectable bodyfat percentage when the time comes to doing it. Even people experienced far more than us in dealing with dieting BBers, such as Daniel Duchaine stated over and over that many people, though NOT ALL (apparently Prof X and his peers do not), have a hard time getting lean when they allowed themselves to get too fat in the offseason.
I know many people, or know OF, including Chris Shugart on here, who have complained that they now have problem areas in which the fat does not come off quickly and that to rid themselves of it took much work (8+ hours of activity per week, weight training and cardio combined). Those who stay lean (10 to 12%) have a much easier time dieting (less activity, less hunger, less muscle loss).
I will ask you then…since you lost 110#, a hefty amount, do you have loose skin anywhere? Any problem areas that are now flabby in comparison to the rest of your body? I am asking this in all seriousness. How is your skin tautness and vascularity.
I will say it again. Many experienced men have stated that “champs do not get fat, they get smooth”. So in these cases, perhaps these men can blow up in the offseason and not look like a lop of shit. But in my view, these are the genetic elite, not your genetically average trainee (read: MOST T-maggers and most of the population). I remember I had a conversation with Ron Harris, who is now under Dante’s tutelage, in which he stated that the genetically elite would actually have a hard time getting fat, so this unabashed bulking for most people is useless.
Even Lee Priest, who clearly bulks up to the point of excess, doesn’t even look all that sloppy at a very high bodyweight. He looks clearly bigger, but the fat is pretty much distributed evenly. Not so for the average folks that I have seen.
And this is WHY I make generalities in my statements. But, if we need to get into specifics, I am fine with that also. [/quote]
Ah, first of all, thanks for the complements, but like I tell everyone else that congratulates, I still have a fairly long way to go. Again, when I say I was extremely obese, I was about 350 lbs. @ 5’1", only 19 years old. I’m young, so that may have helped attribute to the ease of the weight-shedding, but I had to stop the diet because I was losing way too much strength and what size I did have.
As far as the loose skin is concerned, I do have a fair amount, especially in my belly, legs, and some in my arms, but as I’m sitting at about 240, I still have at least 50 lbs or so to lose, but I’m going to do it gradually, and over a longer period of time to help balance out my gains. The only real flabby areas anymore are my stomach and quad areas, everything else is fairly solid at this point. My forearms, wrist, and ankle areas have become much more vascular, but besides that, as I said, I still have a long-ass way to go…
[quote]SSC wrote:
Ah, first of all, thanks for the complements, but like I tell everyone else that congratulates, I still have a fairly long way to go. Again, when I say I was extremely obese, I was about 350 lbs. @ 5’1", only 19 years old. I’m young, so that may have helped attribute to the ease of the weight-shedding, but I had to stop the diet because I was losing way too much strength and what size I did have.
As far as the loose skin is concerned, I do have a fair amount, especially in my belly, legs, and some in my arms, but as I’m sitting at about 240, I still have at least 50 lbs or so to lose, but I’m going to do it gradually, and over a longer period of time to help balance out my gains. The only real flabby areas anymore are my stomach and quad areas, everything else is fairly solid at this point. My forearms, wrist, and ankle areas have become much more vascular, but besides that, as I said, I still have a long-ass way to go…[/quote]
Anyone who loses in excess of 100lbs of body fat should expect to see some loose skin. At the age of 19, you have very little to worry about when it comes to the very likely possibility that it will firm up over time, especially if you gain more muscle mass. If you were over the age of 35, that would be a different story.
Congrats on your weight loss regardless of how much more you have to go.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Even Lee Priest, who clearly bulks up to the point of excess, doesn’t even look all that sloppy at a very high bodyweight. He looks clearly bigger, but the fat is pretty much distributed evenly. Not so for the average folks that I have seen.
And this is WHY I make generalities in my statements. But, if we need to get into specifics, I am fine with that also. [/quote]
Lee Priest would gain in excess of 70-80lbs in the off season when he was at the height of his popularity. He didn’t look “all that sloppy” because the more muscle you carry, the less fat a certain body fat percentage will look. Some kid who is 130lbs at 18% body fat might actually look a little chubby. Some linemen who weighs 280lbs at the same body fat percentage will NOT. He will simply look a little smooth at that weight.
Beyond that, you sure do write a lot to NOT expense of this information you claim to have.
I am waiting for your research proven line in the sand of 15% body fat being a legit cut off for “insulin sensitivity” to the point that we need to warn patients and bodybuilders to avoid crossing it.
Prof, as I said to Gerdy, I have to do some digging for it again as I came across it two years ago. When I find it, I will contact you.
I never said that it was a cutoff point and I am not trying to dodge what I have said. I simply have come across information from people and research that shows that carrying a rather high bodyfat percentage is correlated with decreased insulin sensitivity. I will show you the information when I get it again.
My question to you is “what is the point of getting over 15% bodyfat?” What is the point of doing so if you could OPTIMALLY still gain muscle mass at a lower bodyfat percentage? Is going under this amount going to inhibit muscle gain? I think not for most people if they do not get too low of a bodyfat percentage and are taking in 10 to 15% kcal above maintenance. For your average (NOT YOU) guy here on T-Nation, who probably needs a MAINTENANCE amount of 3,000 to 3,500, that would be about 300 to 525 kcal over maintenance to gain muscle, considering that most us naturals cannot gain more than a 1/2 lb of muscle per week IF we do everything right. Even when doing everything right, there will be weeks where you maintain or only gain a few GRAMS of muscle. What would be the point of getting over 15% to do this?
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Prof, as I said to Gerdy, I have to do some digging for it again as I came across it two years ago. When I find it, I will contact you.
I never said that it was a cutoff point and I am not trying to dodge what I have said. I simply have come across information from people and research that shows that carrying a rather high bodyfat percentage is correlated with decreased insulin sensitivity. I will show you the information when I get it again.
My question to you is “what is the point of getting over 15% bodyfat?” What is the point of doing so if you could OPTIMALLY still gain muscle mass at a lower bodyfat percentage? Is going under this amount going to inhibit muscle gain? I think not for most people if they do not get too low of a bodyfat percentage and are taking in 10 to 15% kcal above maintenance. For your average (NOT YOU) guy here on T-Mag, who probably needs a MAINTENANCE amount of 3,000 to 3,500, that would be about 300 to 525 kcal over maintenance to gain muscle, considering that most us naturals cannot gain more than a 1/2 lb of muscle per week IF we do everything right. Even when doing everything right, there will be weeks where you maintain or only gain a few GRAMS of muscle. What would be the point of getting over 15% to do this? [/quote]
The burden would be on you and others to show that those who don’t go over the coveted “12%” are actually gaining as much muscle as those who have. Sorry, but the biggest guys across the board are generally not the ones who have kept such tight reigns on their body fat percentage from start to finish, regardless of what they claim to support RIGHT NOW. That includes many who have bulked up in the past but now claim to try to stay leaner.
The moment you get arms over 19", let me know how successful that was for you. Until then, I will do what has worked for me, not what you claim IN THEORY just MIGHT work if we go by some ghost research that you have yet to present dictating a 15% cut off point.
Also, yes, I do find I gain muscle poorly below 12% body fat. I am not sure why you believe no one has that issue. I thought it was common knowledge. Not everyone performs best at the lowest possible body fat percentage regardless of what someone has caused you to believe.
At some point would people have to agree to disagree?
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Prof, as I said to Gerdy, I have to do some digging for it again as I came across it two years ago. When I find it, I will contact you.
I never said that it was a cutoff point and I am not trying to dodge what I have said. I simply have come across information from people and research that shows that carrying a rather high bodyfat percentage is correlated with decreased insulin sensitivity. I will show you the information when I get it again.
My question to you is “what is the point of getting over 15% bodyfat?” What is the point of doing so if you could OPTIMALLY still gain muscle mass at a lower bodyfat percentage? Is going under this amount going to inhibit muscle gain? I think not for most people if they do not get too low of a bodyfat percentage and are taking in 10 to 15% kcal above maintenance. For your average (NOT YOU) guy here on T-Mag, who probably needs a MAINTENANCE amount of 3,000 to 3,500, that would be about 300 to 525 kcal over maintenance to gain muscle, considering that most us naturals cannot gain more than a 1/2 lb of muscle per week IF we do everything right. Even when doing everything right, there will be weeks where you maintain or only gain a few GRAMS of muscle. What would be the point of getting over 15% to do this? [/quote]
I don’t want anything directed to the “average” guy in my thread. Brick, silence yourself unless you have something productive to give to this thread. You’re spouting shit that isn’t even applicable for us.
All I believe in is results. Not ONE person who worries about eating above “maintenance” (like anyone really knows how many calories they need)and gaining a little fat and all that useless BS has shown me an oustanding physique.
[quote]kelleyb wrote:
At some point would people have to agree to disagree? [/quote]
At some point, people should show the amazing progress they claim surpasses that of those of us stuck in the “stone age” of bulking. I don’t see how that wouldn’t put most of these issues to rest.
We are basically arguing real world results vs theory (with no proof). In a face to face discussion, this wouldn’t even go past two sentences.
Brick, stop making this thread all about you.
And now you are asking “why go over 15%”.
Well hell, I thought you said that anyone over 12 is a fatass, but now your cutoff is 15? I don’t understand. You know, many coaches and trainers, which you seem to really enjoy listening too, will tell that that human body is most anabolic BETWEEN 12-15. And guess what brother, I’d bet most of the guy on this thread aren’t ever much over 15 if they are at all during bulking season.
You are just like anyone else who people back into a corner, you argue extreme cases (like we are saying get obese) as a last ditch attempt to get everyone to agree with you.
Where did anyone here say get obese? And guess what, 15% is no where near obese brother.