310 pounds to 169 pounds
- 02-06-2013, 02:31 PM
- 02-06-2013, 02:38 PM
- 02-06-2013, 02:40 PM
I agree though, this is even more ridiculous than usual.
For the record, I thought about not replying but couldn't help myself. There was context to clarify and all. But I agree, one pound equals one pound.
To the OP, I am sorry your thread was hijacked. Great progress. The point I was making was that on a scale you will show a certain weight, but because muscle weighs more with volume (body size) in mind, you still look fantastic at 170 pounds, where an untrained 170 pound woman wouldn't, because she would be carrying around more fat, would have a bigger, lumpy body as more fat is required to reach the same weight as muscle et cetera.
This is why scale weight isn't the best idea for a goal. Body composition is. Hopefully the weird challenge on vernacular will at least go to some use where goals are concerned.
02-06-2013, 02:50 PM
02-06-2013, 03:11 PM
The context is a human body though, and volume was being accounted for when I made a comment that was misunderstood and spun in to an out of context argument, an argument where I don't disagree a pound is a pound.
02-06-2013, 04:00 PM
Well Gentlemen, Thank-You for clarifying the muscle mass vs body fat.. Makes sense regarding density wise.Now for a question: I want to continue building muscle but yet I want to lose body fat- Doing more reps at a light weight would result in fat loss, correct? Impossible to gain more muscle on a light weight, for a like to challenge myself to fail when in comes to weight lifting, how would I go about this one?OFF TO SMASH JIM.
02-06-2013, 04:28 PM
Ultimately, bodies are not all made the same and what works best for one person may not work best for another.
You can build muscle with light weight but generally speaking lifting heavier will produce better results.
Lifting heavy requires energy of course, which will burn calories. I realize I'm setting myself up for a potential argument with the next comment but I am speaking in very general terms: compare light weight work with high reps to endurance cardio activities and heavy weight sessions to sprints. Both will build muscle (though extensive cardio can become catabolic, just throwing this in here to head off a senseless tangent), cut fat et cetera, but sprints hit particular muscle fibers conducive to your goal endurance cardio won't, and so will heavy lifting. Google Olympic gold medalist sprinters and long distance runners and compare bodies, both trained to run, yet run differently.
Not only will lifting heavy burn calories and stimulate beneficial fibers for growth, it will cause significant damage to your muscles which will require energy to repair. And as your muscles repair, they grow, requiring additional energy for upkeep, all of which leads to a faster metabolism that will eat away at your fat, assuming your diet is in check and designed to preserve muscle.
Lifting heavy will also give you much faster strength gains, which will in turn allow you to work out with heavier weight sooner, burning more calories as more energy is required to lift more weight.
High volume (relatively light weight) routines build muscles and burn calories too but won't increase your strength as quickly, slowing your ultimate progress.
Most of the arguments that may or may not come will center around volume doing the same thing heavy weight will do with your particular goal in mind which is true, with the exception of rapid strength gain that will essentially expedite everything else.
You can train to failure where both volume and heavy sets are concerned.
Jim sounds awfully lucky in the middle of the afternoon.
02-06-2013, 04:29 PM
You'll burn more calories with higher volume and you'll also trigger a larger growth hormone response as well. Both equate to more success in cutting down. You can have some heavy lifting in there as well, but honestly the 12-20 rep range with short breaks in b/w sets would maximize the intensity and increase your likelihood of success.
On a side note, it is absolutely sad that there is always someone who comes onto a thread being a smart aleck rather than just making a simple, educated assumption when another person makes a mistake in regards to a post. EVERYONE KNEW what he meant about muscle and fat. There ought to be mandatory grace-oriented classes offered on this board for the members who are always controversial (regardless of their accuracy or experience in something). Too many people feed off controversy on this board. If someone is wrong, prove it in a professional and courteous way. Your degree doesn't qualify your opinion any more than my experience qualifies me. Plus, stop high-jacking a thread and take OT arguments to PM instead.
I also reserve an agreement with Texas' previous post however, there is a specific uniqueness to lactic acid build-up - causing continuous aerobic metabolism, which causes more calories burned in the long run which is why I would strive for higher volume with high-intensity training.
Go to failure or near failure at every set = lactic acid build-up
Lactic Acid build-up = aerobic activity
aerobic activity = hard breathing
hard breathing = oxidation
oxidation = more fat burning
yeah it is over-simplified for all you phys ed majors. I realize there are a host of other more details that could be included but for simplicity sake the reasoning does add to up to a basic fact.
02-06-2013, 05:07 PM
I agree that volume will ellicit a better hormonal response and is very effective for body recomp purposes. Weight training is effective for body recomposition in general. And most bodybuilders and fitness models utilize high volume routines for what it is worth to the OP. That said, they most likely did build strength to a certain level allowing decent gains first.
The following is in no way an argument from me and I'm not speaking directly to fueledpassion, only using his post to further a constructive conversation:
People see excellent results with a variety of training protocols as mentioned in the discussion point that best practice for one person may not be for another.
I personally respond well to routines built to capitalize on frequency and heavy loads. I get the best gains from DoggCrapp training, Big Beyond Belief et cetera. High volume traditionally doesn't deliver as well for me. Hitting a muscle group hard and fast 4 times per week as opposed to once or twice just gives me the best results.
My recommendation for strength gains is based on an assumption though, so it could be completely debased. You, the OP, may be at a strength level you are comfortable with and willing to work with, which is fine. As long as you are lifting and progressing you will see favorable recomp results. My only tip would be that repping out at 400 pounds as opposed to 200 on a given lift provides more benefits within the same routine.
Regarding the drama queens, volume must be considered in the context of a human body. I'm only sorry context had to be reiterated when it should've been assumed. I still agree that one pound equals one pound, for the record. I have no contention with the obvious.
For the OP, this board seems to be pretty dramatic. I've only been here a few months myself but what I've noticed is a handful of people will argue dogmatically until they are wrong, or more accurately are shown their stance isn't the only correct stance, in which case they either go out of context or dissappear from a conversation they can't "win" because it isn't winnable for anyone really (usually both, in that order) but show up later with a personal vendetta they try to avenge on some other topic where they see a potential opening; often leading to more out of context and misquoted tangents that derail more threads. Over all though, you can learn a lot here if you stay objective and realize that while various body building methodologies carry many cross over benefits to all, best practice is often unique to each individual. This includes training, diet, supplement and recovery methods. Be leery of anyone pushing a "one and only" solution for anything, there isn't one as variables are so wide that best practice usually boils down to the individual.
02-06-2013, 05:12 PM
02-06-2013, 05:30 PM
02-06-2013, 05:47 PM
02-06-2013, 06:15 PM
02-06-2013, 10:03 PM
02-06-2013, 10:20 PM
02-07-2013, 12:06 AM
I post to an OP and the same scenario as this thread plays out from training to nutrition and even general chat political sub-forums. Some of the same characters either happen to have uncannily similar interests or an awkard and contrary chip on their shoulder and will ignore context and common sense to play it. It's weird.
02-07-2013, 12:17 AM
02-07-2013, 12:31 AM
Oh, I remember another, aesthetic balance argued on planar terms. It's always semantical bull**** and I don't initiate it, this thread is a perfect example.
02-07-2013, 12:34 AM
02-07-2013, 12:39 AM
02-07-2013, 12:49 AM
I mean, have any of you even contributed to the OP's questions? Or is your only interest here arguing semantics out of context and then pointing fingers at other people for the monkey **** it turned in to?
02-07-2013, 02:25 AM
Texas, you as well seem quite educated along with fuelled. My gym experience went okay.. forgot my pre workout... so we know how that all goes.. Had an intense Clen/T3 Migraine as well, but I thought ****it. At least I went!
Tomorrow Im going to go in the morning pre-breakfast and try somethings you guys are throwing at me.. with my pre-workout (no bull), and probably smash it one more time in the evening on my break. Whats a healing agent after a kick ass workout? My legs still hurt from two days ago, but I'm pretty confident the clen has something to do with that. Again, thank you everyone for your help, you're all fantastic! I don't think I've ever been so excited to smash jim at 6AM.
02-07-2013, 03:35 AM
If you read the Protein thread in general, Texas, you bring in multiple points to try stray away from the points others have made in order to make your stance the most correct one, even when disputed WITH science you seemingly end the thread with anecdotal evidence.
This statement is similar in regards to what you constantly say; "I eat >2g/lb of BW therefore this is the only correct way to build muscle, everything else is just useless, pointless and sub-optimal". When disputed, you turn on a tangent to stary away from the initial argument even with confronted with multiple studies that do not reinforce your stance.
I believe you are the one who is unable/unwilling to move into the "new-age" of advanced nutritional research and would rather argue that the old school approach is the only way to live. The last paragragh you wrote completely described yourself to the 'T'.
You act as though you know everything about everything despite many of us having years of study, research and dedicated our lives to training in our chosen fields; JJ, Rodja and Cel all being examples and yet tyou thrive off anecdotal evidnce with seemingly puts all our hardwork into bettering the BB and PLing population and confronting religious dogma that has been shown to not actually exist. The only reason we gave up was the mere fact you were unwilling to accept our arguments unless it followed in the concept of your own line of thought.
02-07-2013, 03:39 AM
02-07-2013, 09:53 AM
Regarding your prior post, the OP in the protein thread asked a question about protein intake to a general population. He recieved multiple answers, including an academic essay referencing studies demonstrating the value of relatively high protein intake, which was then argued as pointless, wasteful and outdated information, and by one guy in particular who admittedly didn't even read the essay, much less check its references while arguing it. In fact, the key argument was that "excess" protein oxidizes and is flushed out anyways yet the entire premise of the essay and it's referenced studies demonstrate that even this excess protein stimulates MPS and nitrogen retention, and ingested properly (high leucine content and in a 2:1 carb to protein ratio) can cause supraphysical levels of MPS and nitrogen retention.
I mentioned anecdotal evidence, yes. We all did. This was not the basis of the conversation but a small part of it, one I elaborated on as confusion sprung off of it. Regarding this particular conversation, I acknowledged gains are possible with lower levels of protein intake. Anecdotally, I shared I've gained off of roughtly 1 gram per pound. I simply believe best practice is more protein, posted two studies to show it along with the academic essay containing references viewers are open to read. You are editing what I said and posted. It wasn't me dogmatically defending one approach and ignoring the rest as wasteful, useless and pointless. I had a good and best stance, supported by research.
I acknowledged IF diets are effective, to a point, though pointed out limitations which were largely ignored or avoided altogether. The actual issue there as I'm sure you will remember was that a guy was on a diet plan requiring breakfast and Celorza suggested he just skip breakfast, effectively applying LG principles to a guy on a different diet altogether, instead of helping him in his chosen diet. My stance there was that various diets of all stripes work through various metabolic pathways, and while acknowledging LG works in it's own right, my argument was ultimately not to argue diet Y against X on diet X principles. Never once did I say leangains is ineffective though multiple pages in multiple threads were spent by others on an LG soapbox, defending LG alone.
In a discussion of the importance of biceps, their function as stabilizers to the bench press was called in to question by a certain Celorza, which is just silly. The actual conversation was whether or not direct training granted beneficial carry over to other lifts but no studies were posted on either side really, just anecdotal evidence and Celorza being a wild man with his off topic flame thrower. An article by a Jim Wendler was posted, however, discussing the effectiveness directly trained biceps of his clients had on their bench press, nevermind pulls. Anecdotal, yes. Alond with the mish mash of anecdotal evidence and from a guy more elite than anyone here where coaching results are concerned. And what happened? Flaming! "No way training biceps could ever help the bench press, god that is so stupid we are just going to ignore it", except Celorza and his off topic flame circus (always entertaining). Why? Because of the reasons mentioned in my last paragraph of the post in question, regardless of common sense and a powerlifting heavy weight weighing in. I don't even know if powerlifting was the the OP topic. It very well could've been hypertrophy but we went so sideways it was hard to tell. And it wasn't me pulling it.
Read the threads again. Start with this one.
02-07-2013, 09:57 AM
02-07-2013, 10:00 AM
Mitigating pain from inflammation is another story. Ginger, fish oil, curcumin (turmeric) and a plethora of other natural solutions with anti-inflammatory properties can help. Anti-oxidant rich fruits and veggies too.
02-07-2013, 11:07 AM
M.Ed. Ex Phys
02-07-2013, 11:20 AM
02-07-2013, 11:41 AM
1) Not defending anyone, I will say that there is an unspoken aspect missing in this argument. Jigzz, good point, I mean it. But I do think that the scientific community has kinda lost its credibility with a bunch of worthless studies. I'm am not saying that your studies were worthless, I'm speaking in general terms. There is so much randomness to studies nowadays that its really hard to bring a good, solid truth home with most of these pseudo studies. I've seen the scientific community jump to a conclusion, then a few years later change its mind..no wait! And back to the same old conclusion again. Its just overwhelming trying to keep up with a bunch a students and professors. I'd rather just try some things on myself and log it as I go and learn what made me respond and what didn't. Finding a random relationship between two things does not merit truth to be told about it. It doesn't even add up to a theory.
2) And since the scientific community is always all over the place, discovering new things, debunking old myths, and rediscovering old truths all the time, I'm forced to only take into consideration what has passed the test of time - what has worked best for previous bodybuilders and athletes.
3) The last problem is this: people are trying to find some worth and value in themselves rather than finding truth. This leads to people writing up articles and publishing a study just to be known for something. To be special, more or less. Again, not saying you are doing that Jigzz, but it does exist.
It all adds up to me searching for truth in men that have already found it. I don't need the credit for myself. So I look for guys who have been successful in the gym rather than in the text. I hope you can understand at least my point of view on things.
Similar Forum Threads
- By fadi in forum Training ForumReplies: 1Last Post: 04-04-2012, 05:29 PM
- By Ryno703 in forum Workout LogsReplies: 49Last Post: 12-25-2008, 12:57 AM
- By Wendy21 in forum Weight LossReplies: 18Last Post: 07-08-2007, 02:11 PM
- By nidan in forum AnabolicsReplies: 14Last Post: 01-23-2005, 08:41 PM
- By windwords7 in forum Weight LossReplies: 10Last Post: 03-02-2003, 07:32 PM