Too Much Makes You Fat!

Bigger Stronger Leaner Competitive Bodybuilding
41

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Andrew Dixon wrote:
<<< Cosgrove reported a study recently where one group did 40mins of steady cardio 3 times a week and one group did 20 mins of intervals 3 time per week.

Steady Cardio gained .5kg of fat and Intervals lost like 8kg’s.

I just plain do not believe that with the only difference being the type of activity one group gains and the other loses. In other words if you took clones and had them eat, workout and live the rest of their lives the same except one does 40 mins. steady cardio and ones does 20 mins. HIIT and one gains weight and the other loses. That just does not make sense on any level.[/quote]

It definitely doesn’t. To lose weight, you have to be in a caloric deficit. People are quick to quote studies without looking at the specifics of the individuals involved in the study. The most important questions are; did they eat less than caloric maintenance, did they eat the same amounts daily, and were they even monitored for their intake. To claim someone gains fat based solely on whether their cardio was HIIT or not is ridiculous.

42

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DukeBoSox wrote:
Saying that most bodybuilders do something is somewhat of a blanket statement in itself. Using an appeal to popularity as your main argument is not only a logical fallacy, it just isn’t sufficient.

That was about the worst attempt at sounding like you have a clue that I have seen on this forum. Congratulations. Most bodybuilders DO perform low intensity cardio. Most do NOT do high intensity cardio because it is believed to cause a loss of muscle tissue.

Since when has something been right just because most bodybuilders do it? People recognize that bodybuilders don’t always train optimally. Also, Bodybuilders carry the most lean muscle mass because of a combination of things, not solely because of their cardio routines.

Bodybuilding has been at the forefront of many concepts that are just now being seen in general society as correct…like low carb diets or the replacement of fats in the diet to make up for the reduction in carbs. These were common tactics used since the 60’s that the rest of the public didn’t acknowledge until this last decade. To ignore what has produced some of the most well developed bodies on the plant is what would be foolish.

Sorry for the confusion, I meant cross country is low-er intensity. That said I wouldn’t call it high intensity, at what percentage of maximum speed is one running during a 5k race, 50%?

If you consider cross country running anything other than a high intensity activity BECAUSE OF HOW LONG IT LASTS you have issues. But then, I guess that falls in line with the rest of what you wrote.
[/quote]

Your attempt to discredit what I said by attacking it is a really mature way of discussing something. I simply said that the argument you made to discredit my original point was filled with logical holes, obviously they don’t teach you how to have a legitimate discussion in medical school, maybe you should read up on critcal reasoning skills. Again, you’re reverting to the “well most bodybuilders do this” argument, and then putting words in my mouth by saying that I want to ignore everything bodybuilders say. Yes they have incredible physiques, yes we should listen to things they say and do because they are pretty knowledgeable, but again, to accept everything they say or do as the best way to do things is naive and foolish. Many bodybuilders train for several hours a day, many days a week. Is this the best way to do things for most people? NO.

This is your M.O. You make your claim, many of them reasonable and informative, but when anyone disagrees, you often don’t respond with logical refutations, you personally attack the other person. Maybe that’s what earns you so many internet followers looking for a quick laugh.

43

You misunderstood what I meant by popularity. I listed the logical fallacy that professor x used in his argument, called “appeal to popularity” which is where someone argues that something is right because most people do it. I’m generally for discussing things normally without technical stuff, but Professor X’s arguments are so often riddled with errors in argument that I thought I’d point it out.

44

[quote]DukeBoSox wrote:
You misunderstood what I meant by popularity. I listed the logical fallacy that professor x used in his argument, called “appeal to popularity” which is where someone argues that something is right because most people do it. I’m generally for discussing things normally without technical stuff, but Professor X’s arguments are so often riddled with errors in argument that I thought I’d point it out. [/quote]

The only error was your own. That is why I am not the only one telling you this. Why do you think a group of people looking for the most efficient and successful way to build better physiques would latch onto a method in majority? What sense would it make to ignore what they have accomplished? Your error is in thinking what I wrote about was wrong.

45

[quote]DukeBoSox wrote:
You misunderstood what I meant by popularity. I listed the logical fallacy that professor x used in his argument, called “appeal to popularity” which is where someone argues that something is right because most people do it. I’m generally for discussing things normally without technical stuff, but Professor X’s arguments are so often riddled with errors in argument that I thought I’d point it out. [/quote]

I know about logical fallacies in general and that one in particular (argumentum ad populum). California Law would be proud =] I haven’t found Professor X’s arguments “so often riddled with errors” and I know for a fact that he isn’t a “me too” simpleton either.

This also is not a court of law and therefore not necessarily subject to the same standards of proof. The bottom line is, in an arena like this, a valid argument from popular authority can in fact be made on an empirical basis if there exists a long history of individuals at the top of a discipline who express near unanimous concurrence regarding a method by which an aspect of that discipline is perfected.

It is folly to deny this and in the absence of stronger proofs to the contrary it is entirely reasonable to assume the soundness of that popular opinion and or practice. Academic studies in these areas, in either method or interpretation, have not advanced to the point where their conclusions constitute stronger proof in my opinion before somebody pulls that one out of their hat.

46

[quote]Professor X wrote:
What sense would it make to ignore what they have accomplished?[/quote]

When did he say he was ignoring what bodybuilders have accomplished? I believe his exact quote was:

Yes they have incredible physiques, yes we should listen to things they say and do because they are pretty knowledgeable, but again, to accept everything they say or do as the best way to do things is naive and foolish.

[quote]
Your error is in thinking what I wrote about was wrong.[/quote]

Ah yes, I forgot the first rule of T-Nation, “agree with everything Prof X says or suffer a brutal e-fate.”

47

[quote]jtrinsey wrote:
Professor X wrote:
What sense would it make to ignore what they have accomplished?

When did he say he was ignoring what bodybuilders have accomplished? I believe his exact quote was:

Yes they have incredible physiques, yes we should listen to things they say and do because they are pretty knowledgeable, but again, to accept everything they say or do as the best way to do things is naive and foolish.

Your error is in thinking what I wrote about was wrong.

Ah yes, I forgot the first rule of T-Nation, “agree with everything Prof X says or suffer a brutal e-fate.”

[/quote]

Even his “direct quote” is incorrect. Who here said we should accept “everything they say or do”? I didn’t. So, your point is that he was making a strawman argument? Thanks for pointing that out. Anything else?

48

Wow, this article is just terrible. Correlation != causation people! I’m glad some folks finally spoke up.

49

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DukeBoSox wrote:
You misunderstood what I meant by popularity. I listed the logical fallacy that professor x used in his argument, called “appeal to popularity” which is where someone argues that something is right because most people do it. I’m generally for discussing things normally without technical stuff, but Professor X’s arguments are so often riddled with errors in argument that I thought I’d point it out.

The only error was your own. That is why I am not the only one telling you this. Why do you think a group of people looking for the most efficient and successful way to build better physiques would latch onto a method in majority? What sense would it make to ignore what they have accomplished? Your error is in thinking what I wrote about was wrong.[/quote]

X, I guess you missed the memo about how bodybuilders don’t know what they’re doing, they are big purely through genetics and steroids, we should all worship at the altar of the skinny motherfuckers and their functional strength.

Anyways, Toney Freeman in the latest issue of MD answered a question about doing HIIT rather than steady state. Basically he said what X said, HIIT would be great but the potential for muscle mass loss is too great for a bodybuilder.

50

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This also is not a court of law and therefore not necessarily subject to the same standards of proof. The bottom line is, in an arena like this, a valid argument from popular authority can in fact be made on an empirical basis if there exists a long history of individuals at the top of a discipline who express near unanimous concurrence regarding a method by which an aspect of that discipline is perfected.[/quote]

Bingo.

Also, “DukeBox” is acting as if we are following bodybuilders blindly. I’ve lost enough fat in my day to know what works.

When you’ve never accomplished something, you throw around logical fallacies when discussing these subjects. When you have accomplished something, you base it on experience.

Sadly, it’s not hard to determine which group outnumbers the other!

51

Always funny to see how the same counter-arguments come out, whenever anybody disagrees with anything Prof X says:

1.) If you disagree with one thing, you disagree with every thing, even if you state multiple times how you have respect for accomplished bodybuilders and how you have learned a lot from them. You could say that until the cows go home but words will still be placed in your mouth anyway.

2.) If you disagree with anything, you are automatically small, have accomplished nothing and are seeking “functional strength.”

Well since I’m obviously 140# and only squat the bar, I obviously have no place in these discussions and better hop back on the bosu ball and keep my mouth shut!

52

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Even his “direct quote” is incorrect. Who here said we should accept “everything they say or do”? I didn’t. So, your point is that he was making a strawman argument? Thanks for pointing that out. Anything else?[/quote]

Again, classic X debating strategy.

For a strawman argument to take place, he would have implied that you made a particular argument and then attacked it, which didn’t happen, he was explaining why HE didn’t follow something just because it is popular among bodybuilders. Actually, funny that you should bring up strawman because I believe that’s exactly what you have done in this thread.

He said, [quote]and then putting words in my mouth by saying that I want to ignore everything bodybuilders say. Yes they have incredible physiques, yes we should listen to things they say and do because they are pretty knowledgeable[/quote] and then in your very next reply, you wrote [quote]Why do you think a group of people looking for the most efficient and successful way to build better physiques would latch onto a method in majority? What sense would it make to ignore what they have accomplished?[/quote].

That’s about as strawman as it gets. I mean, do you even read other peoples’ posts or do you just automatically assume they make the arguments that you want them to?

53

[quote]Ruffio wrote:
Dropping the weights was her mistakes. All endurance athletes should maintain a solid lifting program.

I agree… But is the lifting program lighter then someone that only lifts weights? I just started lifting weights but I am mainly an endurance athlete and I have some doubts if I should go on my bike after Weight Training or should I take it easy?

I am always feeling that I am not doing the right thing since I read most articles that always say don’t do cardio and stuff like that…[/quote]

Two-a-days become important for athletes. We usually did morning upper body lifting. Practice in the afternoon. Lower-body work would be done AFTER a semi-difficult but not killer day with enough time to recover before the next hard workout.

54

I don’t know what this thread has turned into. But I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.

As a former endurance athlete-running cross-country in college at a pretty high level and competing in several triathlons-I can count on one hand the number of skinny-fat high-level or even reasonably competitive endurance athletes I’ve seen.

Endurance athletes do a ton of lower intensity cardio. They also lift weights and do high-intensity intervals, and full-out sprints when appropriate. Someone who jogs 40 miles a week at 10 minute mile pace is no more an endurance athlete than every person who’s ever picked up a weight in their life is a bodybuidler.

Those people don’t look good because that’s ALL the training they do, and in many cases, because they think they can eat like actual athletes even though their training is nothing like them.