I completely understand that the word disease has been redefined to be more inclusive as part of the PC pussification of the world... However the reality is that it is the result of many different types of diseases and disorders along with behavioral patterns. It is a result. It is a state of being... it is not the cause. Not everyone who is obese got there via the same method, or the same disorder. They are not suffering the same cause, they are suffering the same result.
Nice, lets see where this takes you!!!!
MrKleen73 , I have a question.
I might be wrong here, but I think that some of that might have to do with your feeding schedule. If you are already running on low carbohydrate supply, and in a deficit 12 reps at moderate levels might be somewhat depleting to you, and you might even be doing such quality contractions at both weights that they are creating a similar level of tension in the muscle. Causing similar levels of fatigue.
With that setting, I would do way better with BW, like:
Idea is, feeder for all muscles, like Monday: Back workout / Tuesday: feeder back workout / Wednesday shoulders-legs / Thursday: feeder shoulders-legs ...and so on.
Yep, upped my food intake already, lets see how that works out. Took some involuntary rest days -and think they are helping too.
I think more than anything not being in a fed state, or at least not having enough glycogen stored in your muscle from the day before if you are doing IF. If you wanted you could maintain the IF but it would require a much more aggressive approach with carbohydrates the night before. I think you will do better trying to make sure you are fed, or at least have plenty glycogen stored up from the day before.
Normally the are done for weak areas, or areas you are trying to bring up. He is testing the method using his entire body. He won't get the sudden growth in any areas like he would if maintaining everything but say arms and doing feeders for the arms. So most of the recovery can be employed there in that one area. However the hopes are that he can find the balance training his whole body this way and experience the improved recovery overall rather than focusing it in one spot.
Hellz Yeah!HIT4ME MrKleen73, I agree 100% with you both about obesity.
I think the food is going to be a big factor.
I see positive changes already -its not that I'm complaining. Its just that I would like to be all days as strong -and were wondering why not, lol.I think more than anything not being in a fed state, or at least not having enough glycogen stored in your muscle from the day before if you are doing IF. If you wanted you could maintain the IF but it would require a much more aggressive approach with carbohydrates the night before. I think you will do better trying to make sure you are fed, or at least have plenty glycogen stored up from the day before.
Also you are just strong, it isn't like body weight is low or anything. You are doing better than I am right now on your bodyweight pull ups, I got 12, 10, 5 the other day. I also wasn't fed well at that point. You are truly crushing me hardcore on weighted ones!!!
It is an odd strength curve, but at the same time you are far from suffering any weakness in that aspect.
Normally the are done for weak areas, or areas you are trying to bring up. He is testing the method using his entire body. He won't get the sudden growth in any areas like he would if maintaining everything but say arms and doing feeders for the arms. So most of the recovery can be employed there in that one area. However the hopes are that he can find the balance training his whole body this way and experience the improved recovery overall rather than focusing it in one spot.
I explained that about as clear as mud right?
Hellz Yeah!
I think the food is going to be a big factor.
So do you fail at 12 on body weight, or are you stopping short of failure? Also how long on average do you wait in between sets of pull ups? It is odd that 12 gets you when you can do 11 with an additional 45. Only thing that I can figure would be the food. Looking forward to seeing if anything changes with the food.I see positive changes already -its not that I'm complaining. Its just that I would like to be all days as strong -and were wondering why not, lol.
You know the human condition, its never enough...
See? Exactly! 12 is my absolute max with BW (did once 15, only once). With +45 my absolute max is 12. And THAT is odd! I do longer pauses between sets -or do a circuit. Same is true for presses. Has to be food. Thinking that my recovery takes way, way longer, enabling me to only once a weak do heavier weight and oddly enough, same number of reps as with lower weights. But I had this from early on -like always. Could be a genetic thing -or advanced age. Will eat more and report back.
This entire post is poorly thought out, emotionally based, devoid of scientific fact and highly flawed. Just to point out one glaring example:.
Mr. Politician.HIT4ME MrKleen73, I agree 100% with you both about obesity.
KML
Muscle fibers and genetics.... well:hairygrandpa - as for your strength curve, this is something I have pondered a bit. If you think about it, reps are not exactly finite. You may be able to squat 275 for 4 to failure, but all that means is you cannot create force for 275 x 5. You may be able to generate 285 x 4 as well - but you will be further from that 5th rep at 285 than you were at 275, if that makes sense. I often wonder if there is some way to maximize stimulation by manipulating this factor.
Historically, the phenomenon you are explaining is also explained with the idea that we have fast twitch and slow twitch muscle fibers, but I think this is somewhat dated and it is more complicated than that. I think neurological adaptation has a big impact in the mix. More so now than I used to.
You just have a strong ability for a certain rep range perhaps. Maybe you are just neurologically trained to fail in a certain rep range as well.
Finally, MrKleen73 has some good points that are potential simple solutions and simple solutions are often best
Well - being obese can be caused by a lack of discipline - but the state of being obese is actually a diseased state. I'm not saying obese people get a pass - they likely had to take steps to get there. But once they are obese, they are in a diseased state. Just like MrKleen pointed out, someone can take steps to remove their arm, and they are still an amputee. It's their fault, but they are still an amputee.
Yes - plus, to be honest, I keep telling you how much work you're doing. If you can lift once a week hard and heavy, what is the point of doing 2X a week when the second workout will be light? I am not talking about feeders just to get blood flow - but actual workouts. If the hard and heavy didn't stimulate growth, what makes you think the same number of reps with a lighter weight will do anything? Are you there to say you worked out? Or are you there to make yourself adapt so you are stronger next time?
I don't think anyone will disagree with you guys at least to some degree. But you are focused on the cause, that doesn't mean it isn't a disease just because it has a cause; actually it adds to the idea that it IS a disease.
Wait. Wha? You don't think we can agree that most people will agree?
" I'm fat because its a disease." Sounds way better than: " I'm fat because I'm a lazy glutton."
Yes but you don't get fat because being fat is a disease. That's like saying I got lung cancer because it is a disease. No, you got lung cancer because you smoke a pack a day.
Nice back workout man!
Now that is a good looking meal !!
I would have to disagree that it is poorly thought out. You are taking the statements out of context to try to make them look the same intentionally while leaving out the context, and statement that followed that actually sets the 2 apart. It is a great debate tactic and you employed it well to try to illustrate your idea that it was poorly thought out. It is far from poorly thought out, but YES I MUST ADMIT IT IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED! The flaw is a pretty big one though, and admittedly changes everything... I will get to that shortly.
at:I saw that too but figured we said all the same things about obesity and causes or extenuating factors. It was just the classification of the word that was being contested.
From what I can tell, you could probably sell that and win with how broad the definition and scope of disease is.
LOL can't win eh...KML
I had the same situation and can not lift like that anymore. Well at least not with a high degree of frequency anyway. I have found that doing speed work for lower reps IE 3-5 to work almost as well, you just have to do more sets than usual to get the volume required for hypertrophy. Works along the same premise a heavy lifting due to muscle fiber type and activation. Moving a light weight as fast as possible still requires a massive amount of muscle fibers to fire at once similar to a very heavy load.
Dude I laughed so hard when I got to this post!!! I literally said out loud I just love this guy!
Good points.
There you go with the smoking again, even though it is not the cause, it is a potential contributor to cancer for sure, but not required.
I agree with this too, and I guess a person could do that and maybe call it a disease, but they would for sure have a mental disease of some sort already to choose to do this...
Hell of a workout, good to see the food seems to be helping already.
You sure are stuck on lung cancer being the cause for cancer even though it is not required for cancer. I think you are doing it just to phuck with me...
Yeah the specific definition and not just what you believe the definition is very important to have before debating the topic. DOH!!!!!!
Now that is some seriously good news! Tell her Uncle Kleen said keep kicking that bootay!
Geez. That post was epic. Did you have the day off of work today???Damn it has been a busy day today. Finally back and able to address this more appropriately.
I would have to disagree that it is poorly thought out. You are taking the statements out of context to try to make them look the same intentionally while leaving out the context, and statement that followed that actually sets the 2 apart. It is a great debate tactic and you employed it well to try to illustrate your idea that it was poorly thought out. It is far from poorly thought out, but YES I MUST ADMIT IT IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED! The flaw is a pretty big one though, and admittedly changes everything... I will get to that shortly.
Also, the post was far from devoid of scientific fact, granted there was an assload of opinion in there but to say there was no fact in there is simply incorrect and dismissive. I made one error in the conversation as far as I can tell, but it was a biggie!
Definitely was not as emotionally driven as you might think. The pussification comment was not out of anger but humor and sarcasm. It was actually a reference to an old George Carlin bit but I can see that it missed it's mark. I see how it might seem I was angry if that was how it was taken. I think you know me well enough to know that my use of caps or bolding something is just to emphasize a point, and not out of anger. I do have a very strong opinion on that based on some principals of mine though.
I also did not go to the to using a defense against political correctness due to not being able to show how the state of obesity has no pathology. I actually never said or implied anything resembling that there was no pathology behind obesity. I stated VERY CLEARLY that there were diseases, disorder and the like that contributed to obesity. So that really seems like an intentional misdirection trying to make it appear as if I had a need to grasp at straws and didn't understand or supply any facts about obesity but we both know that is far from the case. Even with the revelation below, it doesn't change any of the factual information supplied regarding obesity itself.
Ahhhh, screw it, gonna put this right here instead of waiting until the bottom.
==============================================================================================================
News Flash!!!
This just in!!!
You know what, I am going to eat a big humility sandwich here. I was about to laugh at the thought of calling the common cold a disease, it is a virus... I did not realize a virus was considered a disease though... Well who the hell knew that disease was probably the broadest frigging medical term out there? Well apparently HIT4ME did!
I have to admit that I was looking at disease as ONLY something that happens to you, like cancer yes there are things you can do or avoid doing to reduce the risk but it is a mutation of cells and it can still happen at no fault of ones own. Stuff you are born with. You get the point. I would consider something you caused yourself a condition or disorder, and although that is often correct, I was wrong about the scope of the word disease, and had the order of specificity backwards.
So as brilliant as I might be on the extenuating circumstances causing and surrounding obesity itself... :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
I was completely ignorant and bass ackwards when it came to the definition and scope of the word disease. I was wrong, I thought it was more specific and definite than a disorder or even syndrome but it is actually broader and encompasses them.
Admittedly as I went through here and tried to look at things with an open mind I gradually realized I needed to double check my definition or more to the point the scope of the word disease. If I was okay with calling it a state of disease (one of the turning points in the conversation for me.) Then maybe I needed to revisit it. When I realized I was wrong about the definition I was tempted to go back and erase all of my previous responses above, or now I should say below in this multiquote. However I thought it might be interesting to see the process of realization as well as show some integrity here on my part.
Plus I still find some of your debate tactics worth mentioning. Well played Sir. Not to mention just because I had the definition wrong doesn't mean I was wrong regarding the other information about obesity. I was basically arguing a pretty well thought out case for why it was a disease without knowing it...
Thanks for riding down this rabbit hole with me. LMAO!
I saw that too but figured we said all the same things about obesity and causes or extenuating factors. It was just the classification of the word that was being contested.
From what I can tell, you could probably sell that and win with how broad the definition and scope of disease is.
LOL can't win eh...
I had the same situation and can not lift like that anymore. Well at least not with a high degree of frequency anyway. I have found that doing speed work for lower reps IE 3-5 to work almost as well, you just have to do more sets than usual to get the volume required for hypertrophy. Works along the same premise a heavy lifting due to muscle fiber type and activation. Moving a light weight as fast as possible still requires a massive amount of muscle fibers to fire at once similar to a very heavy load.
Dude I laughed so hard when I got to this post!!! I literally said out loud I just love this guy!
I love your tactics man, they are slick, you have skills. Nice little jab with bringing up the amputee thing, leaving a portion of it out and try to make it as if that is what I said. However I am pretty sure we can still both agree that being an amputee is not a disease.
What is really funny here is that I know you pretty much agree with most of the things I said regarding Obesity other than that it was not a disease... but still looked for ways to manipulate the things I said about obesity itself. Now in comparing these two statements you are not only removing context but also employing massive oversimplification to try to prove your point or should I say at this point purely to rile me up. LMAO I love that you thought to use the fact I didn't state the obvious in the first paragraph that besides the pathology and or diseases that were factors you also must be eating a surplus of calories over what you expend. We both know or should know that is a requirement to become obese and there wasn't any for me to mention it to someone of your intelligence.
I have to admit this was extremely well played here though, capitalizing on me not actually stating that obvious requirement, or pretending you were not aware that I had mentioned there were ALSO other pathological factors that were associated with the state of obesity to try to discredit the statements outside of context. It could have been a mic drop moment for you if it were not so easily recognized to anyone who actually read the whole conversation. Keep in mind now I am just discussing the debate tactics and the things I mentioned about obesity, its causes and what not... I have already conceded I was wrong about the definition, which basically had me proving it was a disease in an effort to prove it wasn't... Ironic eh...
OH and to the bold, this is it... That IS THE MIDDLE GROUND!!! I can agree to call it a diseased state, but not a specific disease. I have not contended the fact that their are several diseases, disorders and conditions associated with the state of obesity. It is EXACTLY what I have been saying this whole time.
The red part here above is where I started considering I might just have the definition and scope of the word disease wrong and should probably go verify my definition... Something about you calling it a diseased state rather than a disease just sat right with me, so then I had to investigate.
Good points.
There you go with the smoking again, even though it is not the cause, it is a potential contributor to cancer for sure, but not required.
I agree with this too, and I guess a person could do that and maybe call it a disease, but they would for sure have a mental disease of some sort already to choose to do this...
Hell of a workout, good to see the food seems to be helping already.
You sure are stuck on lung cancer being the cause for cancer even though it is not required for cancer. I think you are doing it just to phuck with me...
The bolded, I did kind of look at it that way. Great insight there. However, there are also plenty of diseases that happen to people through no fault of their own.
So anyway, now that I have come to the realization I had the definition of disease wrong... Let's address another disease that is right at the top of my mind right now...
Yep, you probably guessed it from the pic, we are talking about foot in mouth disease. I seem to have been experiencing some symptoms of this yesterday!!!!
So that I realize that it is a disease, these are the reasons I now wish it were not classified as a disease. It gives the victim minded people a villian to blame their situation on and shrug off the idea that they are in any way responsible for it. Also the idea that someone could accuse me of discrimination against someone by telling them they are responsible for their situation is completely ridiculous to me... however it being classified a disease offers them that "protection." It also leads people to believe the situation is actually out of their control and that leads to more complacency and more obesity.
Occum's Razor. Kleen nailed it.
I could have kept debating and held my ground out of pride, but when the definition was so broad, and so vague it just means "something" is wrong with something... anything... a plant, person, or animal or even society... So if a state of being is also a problematic state then it fits within that vague and obtuse definition.
I wouldn't either, but I was definitely considering those disorders as part of the extenuating factors. I mean yeah you can not get fat without eating a surplus but if your metabolism is so jacked up that your top limit on calories is 1000 a day then there is definitely something else wrong and the quality of life would suck for most only taking 1000 calories a day. So there, the problem is the lets say hypothyroidism, which most of us would consider as the actual disease or problem and not the result of it... However with the vague definition, and how they are classified medically it qualifies...
Oh yeah that is a seriously fun and abusive thing to do!!!!
I guess it comes down to many factors. If you get fat next week it doesn't mean you get diabetes, high blood pressure thyroid problems etc etc. If you keep being fat for 10 years you'd probably do damage to your body but it's highly individual just like smoking. Some people get cancer without smoking some just don't get cancer even when smoking a package a day. I think this diseased state at least in my opinion should be based on if this person has developed any signs of damage to the body because obese people can still walk around with a better blood pressure than a guy that's working out and living healthy even if the chances of that happening would greatly decrease.
