[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Think it should go without saying that if you’re naturally lean, leaning up is easier, or if you’re naturally stocky, gaining muscle is easier, etc… My question is, with all of the talk on “set points”, is there any validity to rewiring your body’s natural tendency? Example: take a skinny kid who “bulks” for over a decade maintaining 20-ish percent bf the entire time. Will he have rewired his body and now have a hard(er) time getting and staying lean? I personally think “yes”. Thoughts? [/quote]
WF are you stirring the pot?
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Think it should go without saying that if you’re naturally lean, leaning up is easier, or if you’re naturally stocky, gaining muscle is easier, etc… My question is, with all of the talk on “set points”, is there any validity to rewiring your body’s natural tendency? Example: take a skinny kid who “bulks” for over a decade maintaining 20-ish percent bf the entire time. Will he have rewired his body and now have a hard(er) time getting and staying lean? I personally think “yes”. Thoughts? [/quote]
WF are you stirring the pot?[/quote]
Not intentionally. I’d really like to hear people’s thoughts on this. You hear and see bigger guys who were once skinny that became infatuated with size and scale weight talk about how easy it’ll be to cut down, yet they never do it. I personally think that holding high(er) bodyfat for long periods of time in the quest for all out size is basically making your body “want” to be fat.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Think it should go without saying that if you’re naturally lean, leaning up is easier, or if you’re naturally stocky, gaining muscle is easier, etc… My question is, with all of the talk on “set points”, is there any validity to rewiring your body’s natural tendency? Example: take a skinny kid who “bulks” for over a decade maintaining 20-ish percent bf the entire time. Will he have rewired his body and now have a hard(er) time getting and staying lean? I personally think “yes”. Thoughts? [/quote]
WF are you stirring the pot?[/quote]
Not intentionally. I’d really like to hear people’s thoughts on this. You hear and see bigger guys who were once skinny that became infatuated with size and scale weight talk about how easy it’ll be to cut down, yet they never do it. I personally think that holding high(er) bodyfat for long periods of time in the quest for all out size is basically making your body “want” to be fat.[/quote]
I agree with this from my own experience. I’m sure there is a lot of broscience and real science behind it as well. When I am leaner for many months, it is much easier to maintain that and make slow gains in weight. If I let myself get sloppy for many months, I seem to put on weight quite a bit easier and it certainly is not all muscle.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Think it should go without saying that if you’re naturally lean, leaning up is easier, or if you’re naturally stocky, gaining muscle is easier, etc… My question is, with all of the talk on “set points”, is there any validity to rewiring your body’s natural tendency? Example: take a skinny kid who “bulks” for over a decade maintaining 20-ish percent bf the entire time. Will he have rewired his body and now have a hard(er) time getting and staying lean? I personally think “yes”. Thoughts? [/quote]
WF are you stirring the pot?[/quote]
Not intentionally. I’d really like to hear people’s thoughts on this. You hear and see bigger guys who were once skinny that became infatuated with size and scale weight talk about how easy it’ll be to cut down, yet they never do it. I personally think that holding high(er) bodyfat for long periods of time in the quest for all out size is basically making your body “want” to be fat.[/quote]
Sounds like me for the longest time. And yes, I agree.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Think it should go without saying that if you’re naturally lean, leaning up is easier, or if you’re naturally stocky, gaining muscle is easier, etc… My question is, with all of the talk on “set points”, is there any validity to rewiring your body’s natural tendency? Example: take a skinny kid who “bulks” for over a decade maintaining 20-ish percent bf the entire time. Will he have rewired his body and now have a hard(er) time getting and staying lean? I personally think “yes”. Thoughts? [/quote]
WF are you stirring the pot?[/quote]
I am leaner right now than I have been before and holding more muscle.
Your body adapts to what you do to it.
That is the reason “set points” get discussed.
I’m pretty sure that the whole “set point” theory / hypothesis and its variations in the literature apply strictly to body FAT levels and not muscles.
Applying the basic concept to muscles is only done by some Internet bros like PX.
In fact, the set point hypothesis, as discussed in the literature, is an argument against going up to high in bf for a longer time while bulking since it will be that much harder to lose.
^^^ No one saw that coming. …
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
I’m pretty sure that the whole “set point” theory / hypothesis and its variations in the literature apply strictly to body FAT levels and not muscles.
Applying the basic concept to muscles is only done by some Internet bros like PX.
In fact, the set point hypothesis, as discussed in the literature, is an argument against going up to high in bf for a longer time while bulking since it will be that much harder to lose.[/quote]
Shelby Starnes wrote:[quote]
Set Point Considerations
The human body has a lot of internal thermostat-type processes that help it maintain homeostasis. It tries to keep some semblance of “normal” in terms of bodily processes, and it can be quite difficult to change that set point.
Ever notice how after dieting your body tries to fall back to the weight you started at? That’s your set point. It’s what your body is used to, and it wants to get back to that state.
One way to help re-set your set point is to maintain the new weight for a longer period of time in an attempt to get your body to recognize the new weight as its new set point.
Resetting your set point can take months. So rather than getting your weight up to a certain point and then immediately dieting back down, hold that new weight for six months or longer. It will help you hold on to more of that new muscle when you do eventually diet down.
This doesn’t mean get fat and stay fat! It means put on muscle, keep your body fat under control, then hold that new weight for a while before slowly leaning out.[/quote]
I’m a little concerned that now we’re going to be repeatedly reminded of Shelby’s opinion as sole proof of the existence of set points. Without this thread turning into what I think we’re all expecting, didn’t X jump on another poster last month for using Meadow’s Opinion as proof, and not actually providing a scientific study?
@Infinite-Shore: I actually think the idea of set points applies more to bodyfat levels as well. The idea of homeostasis, and maintaining safe compositional levels for self preservation are things I would think apply more with adipose tissue in order to stave off periods of limited food intake. I’m curious what someone like Brick who works as an RD with a more general population thinks, or has actually seen with his charges concerning this because let’s face it, gym rats very often see what they want to see.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I’m a little concerned that now we’re going to be repeatedly reminded of Shelby’s opinion as sole proof of the existence of set points.[/quote]
Actually, I posted it because like was written right before me, it was stated that I somehow made this up from “bro science” and that no trainer agrees with it…,.when clearly this is not the case.
I am not sure why you would be against me making that point.
[quote]
Without this thread turning into what I think we’re all expecting, didn’t X jump on another poster last month for using Meadow’s Opinion as proof, and not actually providing a scientific study?[/quote]
Actually, what you saw was me go through several case studies where NOT ONE showed a direct relation between increased body fat and “insulin sensitivity” alone. This was based on there being many studies done on people with regards to OBESITY.
There have been no studies done on “set points” so using that example makes little sense here. All information would then have to come from well educated people with EXPERIENCE directly with it.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
@Infinite-Shore: I actually think the idea of set points applies more to bodyfat levels as well. The idea of homeostasis, and maintaining safe compositional levels for self preservation are things I would think apply more with adipose tissue in order to stave off periods of limited food intake. I’m curious what someone like Brick who works as an RD with a more general population thinks, or has actually seen with his charges concerning this because let’s face it, gym rats very often see what they want to see.
S[/quote]
It actually doesn’t apply to body fat levels. That was why I quoted Shelby Starnes. He explained it quite well and would seem to disagree with what you just wrote.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
@Infinite-Shore: I actually think the idea of set points applies more to bodyfat levels as well. The idea of homeostasis, and maintaining safe compositional levels for self preservation are things I would think apply more with adipose tissue in order to stave off periods of limited food intake. I’m curious what someone like Brick who works as an RD with a more general population thinks, or has actually seen with his charges concerning this because let’s face it, gym rats very often see what they want to see.
S[/quote]
It actually doesn’t apply to body fat levels. That was why I quoted Shelby Starnes. He explained it quite well and would seem to disagree with what you just wrote.[/quote]
Actualky I don’t think he explains that it doesn’t pertain to bf levels. And he also advocates keeping a flexed 6pack at all times at least
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
@Infinite-Shore: I actually think the idea of set points applies more to bodyfat levels as well. The idea of homeostasis, and maintaining safe compositional levels for self preservation are things I would think apply more with adipose tissue in order to stave off periods of limited food intake. I’m curious what someone like Brick who works as an RD with a more general population thinks, or has actually seen with his charges concerning this because let’s face it, gym rats very often see what they want to see.
S[/quote]
It actually doesn’t apply to body fat levels. That was why I quoted Shelby Starnes. He explained it quite well and would seem to disagree with what you just wrote.[/quote]
Actualky I don’t think he explains that it doesn’t pertain to bf levels. And he also advocates keeping a flexed 6pack at all times at least
[/quote]
I didn’t think this was that hard to understand. It isn’t about body fat. It is about getting your body used to a heavier weight so you CARRY MORE MUSCLE IN THE LONG RUN.
It is seriously like some of you will argue no matter what.
Your comment about a six pack doesn’t relate to anything written here.
[quote]
Set Point Considerations
The human body has a lot of internal thermostat-type processes that help it maintain homeostasis. It tries to keep some semblance of “normal” in terms of bodily processes, and it can be quite difficult to change that set point.
Ever notice how after dieting your body tries to fall back to the weight you started at? That’s your set point. It’s what your body is used to, and it wants to get back to that state.
One way to help re-set your set point is to maintain the new weight for a longer period of time in an attempt to get your body to recognize the new weight as its new set point.
Resetting your set point can take months. So rather than getting your weight up to a certain point and then immediately dieting back down, hold that new weight for six months or longer. It will help you hold on to more of that new muscle when you do eventually diet down.
This doesn’t mean get fat and stay fat! It means put on muscle, keep your body fat under control, then hold that new weight for a while before slowly leaning out.[/quote]
Here we go again.
Playing nice with others didn’t seem to last very long.
Thank you posting the same thing. And weirdly enough it still does not say what you are claiming it does but that’s ok
This is going no where. I’m out unless someone else has a good post
Ok X, seeing as you’re apparently the only dude here (maybe anywhere) that can somehow manage to be “bigger, leaner and more muscular” every few weeks, it would seem that the “set points” you so often reference don’t apply to you. You’re constantly changing, throwing off your body’s compass.
[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
Ok X, seeing as you’re apparently the only dude here (maybe anywhere) that can somehow manage to be “bigger, leaner and more muscular” every few weeks, it would seem that the “set points” you so often reference don’t apply to you. You’re constantly changing, throwing off your body’s compass. [/quote]
The “set points” I reference are why my body can get back to where it was before my accident as easily as it is lately.
I have been this weight before and held it long enough for my body to see it as “normal”. Hitting that same weight again with more muscle is exactly what I and Starnes have written about over the years.
I do find it strange that you seem to be claiming that the fact that what I am doing seems to be working means it doesn’t. That seems highly illogical.
That would mean, no, I am not “throwing off my bodies compass” since I already know that this is exactly what we are discussing when mentioning setpoints.
I have been HEAVIER than this before. Me hitting a weight I have been before with even more muscle is exactly what I have done from the very beginning…and happens to be what Starnes wrote in what I quoted.
One more note in general and not to you personally, there is a large difference between using a specific quote of a trainer as a REFERENCE and simply dropping a trainer’s name and saying he agrees with you.
I did the former. Usually, what we see is the latter from others.
I have no problem discussing a QUOTE from another trainer…but what I usually see is, “Trainer X said something different” or something to that effect…ie. “name dropping”.
I know that’s directed at me so I will reiterate. John’s stuff is for paying customers. Not free T-Nation articles. Ok. There is a difference out of respect for John I am not posting that kind of info that he gets money for in a public forum
I am starting a twinkie diet. I hear the new ones have less calories, fat, and carbs. Bulking up my BF to a comfortable 50%.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I know that’s directed at me so I will reiterate. Johns stuff is for paying customers. Not free tnation articles. Ok. There is a difference out of respect for John I am not posting that kind of info that he gets money for in a public forum[/quote]
It isn’t just directed at you but ANYONE who uses a name alone as “backup” for whatever stance they have.
It happens so often with certain posters here it destroys any attempt at a real discussion.
If you are QUOTING another source, that is how you use that as a resource.
Dropping the name of someone and then saying, “hey that guy agrees with me so there!” isn’t a discussion. It is simple bro science, name dropping and fan-boyism.
As for what you wrote here, if the information is so exclusive that no one but paying customers are allowed to view it, not only would I ask you to question the credibility of that science as real fact and not just opinion…I would also ask you to NOT mention the name if you can’t provide any quotes of what was supposedly said that supports your stance.
Once again, doing anything else is ‘name dropping’ and nothing more.