[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
In between months 1 and 12 if I am seeing more strength in the gym and my arms are growing, and I choose not to diet down because of it, that may lead me to carrying more body fat than “ideal” that can be dieted off later.
AT NO POINT IN TIME WAS THE THOUGHT THAT CARRYING MORE FAT CAUSES MORE GROWTH.[/quote]
You’re not saying it causes more growth, but you’re implying that carrying that fat is necessary for growth.
[/quote]
That isn’t implied at all in that statement.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
In between months 1 and 12 if I am seeing more strength in the gym and my arms are growing, and I choose not to diet down because of it, that may lead me to carrying more body fat than “ideal” that can be dieted off later.
AT NO POINT IN TIME WAS THE THOUGHT THAT CARRYING MORE FAT CAUSES MORE GROWTH.[/quote]
You’re not saying it causes more growth, but you’re implying that carrying that fat is necessary for growth.
[/quote]
Personally, I’ve never read that implication into PX’s posts. I don’t ever think I’ve read that fat is “necessary” for growth, but in some people, it goes hand in hand. Obviously, the goal (in bodybuilding or physique-minded folks) is to minimize that ratio of fat to muscle gain.
For some people, it’s a fact of life that adding some fat goes with adding weight to the bar if ones goal is to add weight to the bar as quickly as possible.
I’ve always understood a component of time implied in PX’s posts about dealing with fat when gaining. If your ‘rate of gains’ goal isn’t really time oriented, then, sure, take years to add to the bar or grow your arms as leanly (is that a real adverb?) as possible.
[/quote]
Exactly. Good post.
[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Even Charles Poliquin, has some alright things to say:
Poliquin:
" Believing the bulking-up nonsense
In the so-called Golden Age of Bodybuilding where bodybuilders were known by their first names (e.g., Arnold, Louie and Sergio), bulking up in the off-season and then cutting up was standard practice. Besides the obvious health problems associated with adding excess fat, bulking up is a really bad approach to trying to achieve your physique or athletic fitness goals. Here are six reasons why:
ANTI-BULKING FACT #1. Bulking-up diet programs won?t produce any more muscle growth than ingesting an ideal amount of nutrients. Sorry, but it?s simply not possible to force additional muscle growth by overfeeding.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #2. Bulking up develops insulin resistance, which makes it harder in the long run to gain muscle. What happens when you bulk up is that carbohydrates will go preferentially to fat stores, not to muscle tissue.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #3. Bulking up will make it harder for you to get leaner because insulin resistance is hard to reverse. The fatter you get, the harder it becomes to get lean. Female bodybuilders learn this fact quickly, as it is considerably harder for women to reach the low body-fat levels required for competition.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #4. The fatter you get, the more aromatase enzyme your body will produce. In the extreme, getting fat could be considered a form of self-castration, as your own testosterone will be converted into the female hormone estrogen and you will suffer many unwanted side effects. If you?re a man and you enjoy wearing a bra, go right ahead and get fatter.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #5. Getting fatter will ramp down the effectiveness of your thyroid hormone production ? not a good thing, because thyroid production is essential for fat loss. The fatter your abdominal wall becomes, the less conversion there will be of T4 to T3, the metabolically active form of thyroid.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #6. The lower your percentage of body fat, the better your body becomes at nutrient partitioning. This means individuals with low body fat are more effective at storing the ingested nutrients in the muscle (as muscle tissue or glycogen) or in the liver (as glycogen) and less effective at storing nutrients as body fat. To put it in simpler terms, leaner individuals can eat more nutrients without gaining fat.
ANTI-BULKING FACT #7. The idea that ?a calorie is a calorie? is a bunch of bunk. Calories from sweet potatoes are great for building muscle; calories from beer are not. For that matter, getting fat increases the risk of dying from any cause, even terrorist attacks. I?m serious ? you?re a bigger target and you can?t get out of danger as fast.‘’[/quote]
the first quote is accurate, but the problem with it is… how do you know what is the “ideal amount”. It’s very hard figuring that out and I’d be more worried about under-eating than over-eating. If you over-eat you just get some bodyfat, if you under-eat you just wasted your time in the gym and your off days as well (which for me is 4 days total). If you’re talking about someone eating 10000 calories when they can get on 5000, yeah I’d agree with that. But if you gain at 4k, I’d probably go slightly above that number & recomp later.
Bulking causes insulin resistance? lol
Abdominal obesity is correlated with insulin resistance. When you’re studying a population that got fat from eating processed carbs and junk food… I don’t really know how you are going to say that bodyfat causes insulin resistance when you are studying those people and drawing correlations between the two.
Also if you look at CR/IF studies you will see that total calories do not relate to insulin resistance, timing & exposure to carbs do. My guess is repeated exposure to carbs cause it, and if you do not give your body breaks from carbs your body becomes resistant.[/quote]
Good post.
[quote]The3Commandments wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’ve personally been saying that 1st point for years. It sounds like common sense (you can only fill a cup until it’s full, after that it just spills over = you can just address your nutrient needs in building muscle, after that it just spills over), but I know we will always find lifters who adamantly believes they’re the exception.
S[/quote]
Maybe someone can help me get my head around this (fyi, I have essentially no formal education in this stuff–law student).
I don’t see how that analogy really fits. Let’s say that my BMR is 3000 calories for a given day. Let’s say that I eat 4000 calories, for a surplus of 1000 (presumably too much). I don’t see how it is the case that the first, say, 3200 calories go towards recovery from calorie expenditure and then building muscle, then all the rest goes to fat.
I don’t understand how one could make the case that you eat a certain amount of caloric surplus, all of which (or the vast majority of which) must go towards growth, then the rest goes to fat…
It seems more logical that of any given caloric surplus, some percentage goes towards fat and some towards muscle. Of course, I would imagine that the surplus is purely fat after you get to the point of consumption that fully fuels the amount of muscle that the body can synthesize in a given period. But the idea that the body preferentially synthesizes muscle instead of adding some fat as well just doesn’t gel…
What am I missing?[/quote]
Nothing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
And that is exactly what is being discussed right here in this thread. People looking at what happens to them and discussing their experience.[/quote]
Are you able to “look” and judge your blood levels of insulin?
[/quote]
Are you? you keep making these insulin sensitive and healthy claims about training. Studies please. [/quote]
?? The only claim I made is that there is nothing showing that body fat alone, avoiding actual obesity, has significant effects on insulin sensitivity. I haven’t seen one study showing this.
We aren’t talking about going from obese to lean here. Unless you or anyone else can find a study showing body fat changes alone at relatively small levels affects insulin sensitivity, then you shouldn’t be happy about anyone spreading that as truth either.
We KNOW that training alone is such a significant factor that ignoring that to focus on BMI is ridiculous.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The point again, like the other poster made, is that long term it allows more progress.
[/quote]
How can you say that…What are you basing yourself off to say this?
How do you even KNOW this?
[/quote]
@SteelyD… how is this not impplying what Brick said… lol
[/quote]
zraw - I don’t really glean any joy or satisfaction arguing semantics.
I didn’t bother searching for the post that you quoted, but the quote itself does not imply “necessary” – as in “adequate calories and protein consumption are necessary for growth”
All I can interpret, given the full catalog of posts PX has made in the past is that by saying “… long term it allows more progress” means that someone who is making strength and/or size gains might notice that they’re smoothing out. Instead of stopping their progress they accept it and keep going. At some future point with more relevant gains, they notice they’ve put on a little more fat, but instead of stopping to diet it off, they accept it as within comfort zone and keep progressing.
In that amount of time, let’s call it one year, that person would have made more noticable strength and size gains than someone who keeps stopping to diet just to remain at some fat% or shirt size or ab visibility. In that respect, the style of continued progression (or, non-dieting) has ‘allowed’ that person to make more progress (strength/size) than the constant dieter. Only that person can determine if the ‘progress’ was quality or not for their goals.
That’s all I ever read into PX’s posts and all that I interpreted as ‘implied’.
zraw - did you ever get my PMs I sent somewhat recently (weeks)?[/quote]
Good post.
I don’t see how anyone sees anything different.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
I think the problem is people have different definitions of what “Full House” is. To me it is a look not a state of being. Not all power lifters are “full house” and neither are all off season bodybuilders. Some carry to much fat. Thing is powerlifters do not care as long as move heavy shit and body builders can let themselves go a bit more than most since there drug use will allow them to drop fat quicker. Also, like I stated in the other thread not everyone will look the same “Full house”. Bodybuilders on average are shorter so carrying extra fat takes away the taper and makes them look short and blocky/stocky.
To me Brandon Lilly has an awesome “Full House” look. [/quote]
I agree that is an imposing look. It does not look bad, especially in clothes. My question: Do you think Brandon Lilly would look better or worse if he maintained his muscle mass and lost 15 lbs of fat? [/quote]
LOL.
The point is, some people might think you would look better with another 15lbs of muscle even if you added 5lbs of body fat to get it.
Since LOOKING BETTER is subjective, claiming that just because you think someone dropping weight is more impressive than being bigger it doesn’t mean everyone else does.
Everyone here doesn’t care about being 10% body fat or leaner.
I think the real problem or question is why that bothers you and others so much.
I know I find overall size and muscle more impressive than some really lean guy who is much smaller. That is just me…but it would seem that many others share the same sentiment.
I would give the bigger guy more respect for that in the gym. That is just my personal take on it…and since many others share it, stop acting like it is wrong.
[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
again, no studies show this. And if you study the american population it’s not an accurate study. Maybe their diet or lack of exercise caused it as well?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Studying fat people who got that way on junk food vs studying “fat” people who lift and got that way on healthy foods, maybe their insulin resistance isn’t the same??? Again, even if BF% is correlated with insulin resistance, it does not mean that it causes it.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
not really, look at IF studies. In people who consume carbs in limited timeframes, they have way better insulin sensitiivty. I’m not saying carbs cause it, I’m saying eating carbs 24/7 cause it. People on IF diets consuming the same amount of calories as people on normal or CR diets have better insulin sensitivity. So repeated exposure causes it. And yeah someone bulking may be more prone to IR, since they are eating more, doesn’t mean they will necessarily have it depending on how their diet is set up.
http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/6/2128.full
probably hundreds of other ones as well
[/quote]
Great posts from you here.
I am not sure how someone can argue against what you wrote here.
[quote]chillain wrote:
2 - As zraw mentioned, everything changes in response to training stimulus.
[/quote]
LOL.
That is why looking at BMI studies to say that fat changes at all cause insulin resistance changes makes no scientific sense.
In terms of obesity, it is unlikely that the very obese person is “training” much at all…therefore, ignoring that mobility alone could be the major factor to ONLY look at body fat would incorrect.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
I think the problem is people have different definitions of what “Full House” is. To me it is a look not a state of being. Not all power lifters are “full house” and neither are all off season bodybuilders. Some carry to much fat. Thing is powerlifters do not care as long as move heavy shit and body builders can let themselves go a bit more than most since there drug use will allow them to drop fat quicker. Also, like I stated in the other thread not everyone will look the same “Full house”. Bodybuilders on average are shorter so carrying extra fat takes away the taper and makes them look short and blocky/stocky.
To me Brandon Lilly has an awesome “Full House” look. [/quote]
I agree that is an imposing look. It does not look bad, especially in clothes. My question: Do you think Brandon Lilly would look better or worse if he maintained his muscle mass and lost 15 lbs of fat? [/quote]
LOL.
The point is, some people might think you would look better with another 15lbs of muscle even if you added 5lbs of body fat to get it.
Since LOOKING BETTER is subjective, claiming that just because you think someone dropping weight is more impressive than being bigger it doesn’t mean everyone else does.
Everyone here doesn’t care about being 10% body fat or leaner.
[/quote]
Consider that this was originally posted in the bb forum. Someone caling themselves a bber should be concerned with getting to 10% bf or leaner at some point.
LOL
I find overall size, muscle, AND leanness more impressive that just overall size and muscle. But since this is in the “bigger, stronger, leaner” forum, and leaner is last amongst the three, it doesn’t matter. I said before, IN THIS VERY THREAD, that i think the full house guy is more impresive than the calvein klein model. Mybe you should read the entire thread before you post?
I also find it funny that you seem to always have to compare the full house guy to a lean guy that is MUCH smaller, as if there aren’t lean guys that are similar size or bigger.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Consider that this was originally posted in the bb forum. Someone caling themselves a bber should be concerned with getting to 10% bf or leaner at some point.
[/quote]
I do believe that many guys who do that have a goal of being leaner…and since you are even trying to make that distinction, then it means no one can claim that goal unless dieting to competition levels of body fat…not just 10%.
Either way, what I see here more than anything is guys acting like bigger guys here are “just fat” as if that extra muscle doesn’t mean anything unless dieted down.
I am not just talking about extremes…but still, I am more impressed with a really big guy with a little more body fat than some guy who is super happy with just being lean.
I also know that worrying about being contest lean is a temporary effect and many of us are looking for what feels and looks good long term.
I don’t see many guys here who are that big though. No one is going to look at StealyD and ignore his muscles to complain about his body fat levels.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Consider that this was originally posted in the bb forum. Someone caling themselves a bber should be concerned with getting to 10% bf or leaner at some point.
[/quote]
I do believe that many guys who do that have a goal of being leaner…and since you are even trying to make that distinction, then it means no one can claim that goal unless dieting to competition levels of body fat…not just 10%.
Either way, what I see here more than anything is guys acting like bigger guys here are “just fat” as if that extra muscle doesn’t mean anything unless dieted down.
[/quote]
I don’t see people calling bigger guys “just fat.” They are saying “carrying more fat than necessary for bbing purposes.” Big diference. What I see is knowledgable posters and competitors saying that 5’9 260 20+% bf does not translate into 220 contest shape as a natty.
If the guy super happy with being lean is carrying a similar amount of muscle as the realy big guy with more bodyfat, are you still more impressed with the guy carrying more fat?
[quote]
I also know that worrying about being contest lean is a temporary effect and many of us are looking for what feels and looks good long term.
I don’t see many guys here who are that big though. No one is going to look at StealyD and ignore his muscles to complain about his body fat levels.[/quote]
And no one is going to look at Stu and and mistake him for a calvein klein model (no offense stu!)
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
And no one is going to look at Stu and and mistake him for a calvein klein model (no offense stu!)[/quote]
Although Stu is THAT good looking…
/bro love
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I don’t see people calling bigger guys “just fat.”[/quote]
That is your own perspective. When I get Brick saying I am 25% body fat right now, it is clear some of you ignore what is being said when it suits you.
Most of the people here won’t ever compete so why even bring that up? Further, why act like it is true for all people when most of you are pulling these numbers out of thin air?
Someone 5’9" weighing 260lbs with only 20% body fat would look like a fucking freak who was a little smooth. They would be a beast. Not exactly something negative aside from needing to cut back on carbs for a while to get that under control.
I personally would see that as “holy shit”…which is something many seem to ignore.
The bigger you are, the more impressive you look at higher body fat percentages.
We also know that most people would not see that as the “end goal”.
[quote]
If the guy super happy with being lean is carrying a similar amount of muscle as the realy big guy with more bodyfat, are you still more impressed with the guy carrying more fat?[/quote]
That depends on how they actually look. Some people look WORSE really lean, especially when it shows all of the indentations of the face like in contest condition. Simply being leaner does not automatically mean someone looks “better”.
[quote]
And no one is going to look at Stu and and mistake him for a calvein klein model (no offense stu!)[/quote]
What is with the name dropping? I have no issue with Stu. I just know I personally don’t have that as a goal.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Im not concerned with how pretty someones face looks.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
I’m sorry Bricks comment hurt your feelings, but generally people aren’t saying that. So why act like they are?
[/quote]
LOL. It doesn’t have anything to do with being “hurt”. I was showing that people ARE acting like that whether you claim you can see it or not.
Not the point. You made s statement that implied simply being leaner always makes you look better. This is not always true and it isn’t always just the face that is the concern.
Yes, someone might just look more impressive carrying more body fat to the eye other people.
[quote]
I have no issued with SteelyD, not have I or would I call him fat. I just know I personally don’t have that as an end goal. Why drop his name??[/quote]
Because you dropped someone else’s. I returned the favor.
Simply put, many people would think someone like Steely D is more impressive than even Stu if they saw him in the gym.
How is that for name dropping?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No one is going to look at StealyD and ignore his muscles to complain about his body fat levels.
[/quote]
[quote] Maiden3.16 wrote:
And no one is going to look at Stu and and mistake him for a calvein klein model (no offense stu!)[/quote]
[quote] Professor X wrote:
What is with the name dropping? [/quote]
lol come on
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Because you dropped someone else’s. I returned the favor.
[/quote]
Hahaha this interaction didn’t take long to get childish. Read the thread man, you dropped Steely’s name before I dropped Stu’s. I returned the favor. I didn’t think it was going to be this big of a deal. I’m sorry.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Because you dropped someone else’s. I returned the favor.
[/quote]
Hahaha this interaction didn’t take long to get childish. Read the thread man, you dropped Steely’s name before I dropped Stu’s. I returned the favor. I didn’t think it was going to be this big of a deal. I’m sorry.[/quote]
So you focus on that instead of any other point made?
This thread isn’t about Stealy Or Stu…it is about why some people like being really big and really strong even if it isn’t at really lean body fat levels.
I think you got your answer.