Re: Chris's Obesity (was Warrior Menu)

[Guest guest]

>I like the BMIs because I can see how much extra weight I have for my

>height. It's a badge of honor to be " overweight " with a six-pack, but

>I'll know I've achieved a lot when I'm " obese " ! Lol!

>

>

And when you get there, post up a new photo with the caption:

Masterjohn

height: 5'7 "

weight *** lbs

BMI: 30+

Obese, by government standards!

Ah ha, what a hoot that would be. All ripped, yet just another SAD

statistic, hee hee.

>Reminds me of the time I went to the doctor and the PA or whatever she

>is weighed me, and said, " Oh good, you've lost five pounds! " And I

>was thinking, " Yeah, I had diarrhea every day for the last week,

>that's great! Do I look fat to you? " I don't remember whether I said

>anything or not, but when people talk about their weight as if it is

>important in this type of way, it really makes me lose respect for

>their intelligence. Like, how can you consider *weight* as an

>isolated variable and important indicator of health?

>

>

I can't believe you didn't say anything! Since when do YOU hold your

tongue? <g> When I gained 20 lbs teaching aerobics as a young pup, I

said to myself there and then, " I'd rather be strong than skinny. " Of

course, I was the same size, only chest (rib cage increase) and arms

couldn't fit into the clothes I used to wear. But I looked way, way better.

>I talked to this kid in the gym yesterday who is on some horrid diet

>from a magazine (I didn't say anything, first time meeting him, but

>I'll warn him next time) and is trying to lose 20 lbs or something.

>He's doing strength training, and he wants to gain muscle, but he's

>talking about how he weighs 150-something and his ideal weight is

>130-something and he isn't fat at all. He was young, so I attributed

>it to that. I pointed out that if he wants to gain muscle at the same

>time he loses fat, it would be better to go my the mirror than the

>scale. He could judge his fat loss roughly by how much ab definition

>he can see and the shape of his torso, and ignore his weight

>altogether.

>

>

He should work on the muscle and the rest will take care of itself.

Shoot he may as well forget about " ideal weight " or he'll be all sad

when his BMI spikes. Unlike you ...

Deanna

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

>

> >I like the BMIs because I can see how much extra weight I have for my

> >height. It's a badge of honor to be " overweight " with a six-pack, but

> >I'll know I've achieved a lot when I'm " obese " ! Lol!

> >

> >

there's all this strutting about body building muscle. Is body building even

good for your health? What is it beyond vanity? Why not just train for fitness

and strength? Body building, at least in my eyes, is pretty much antithetical to

the goals of the types of diet we try to stress here. Is it healthy to pack on

all of that non functional muscle?

Not that I've read any studies, but I'd bet that packing on 50 extra pounds of

muscle that are not directly related to strength is correlated to a shorter life

span. And for that matter, I'd bet that hugely muscular people, even if they are

very strong, would have done better to have maximized strength on a sleeker

frame.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>there's all this strutting about body building muscle. Is body building

>even good for your health? What is it beyond vanity? Why not just train

>for fitness and strength? Body building, at least in my eyes, is pretty

>much antithetical to the goals of the types of diet we try to stress here.

>Is it healthy to pack on all of that non functional muscle?

>Not that I've read any studies, but I'd bet that packing on 50 extra

>pounds of muscle that are not directly related to strength is correlated

>to a shorter life span. And for that matter, I'd bet that hugely muscular

>people, even if they are very strong, would have done better to have

>maximized strength on a sleeker frame.

I'm pretty sure you're right, though I doubt there's much good hard data on

the subject.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Gene-

>

> >there's all this strutting about body building muscle. Is body building

> >even good for your health? What is it beyond vanity? Why not just train

> >for fitness and strength? Body building, at least in my eyes, is pretty

> >much antithetical to the goals of the types of diet we try to stress here.

> >Is it healthy to pack on all of that non functional muscle?

> >Not that I've read any studies, but I'd bet that packing on 50 extra

> >pounds of muscle that are not directly related to strength is correlated

> >to a shorter life span. And for that matter, I'd bet that hugely muscular

> >people, even if they are very strong, would have done better to have

> >maximized strength on a sleeker frame.

>

> I'm pretty sure you're right, though I doubt there's much good hard data on

> the subject.

>

>

>

> -

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think most people on this list, at

least those who have spoken up, train primarily for functional

strength. Of course being functionally strong usually (though not

always) means being leaner if not lighter and better looking as a

result. I doubt very seriously most of us are interested in producing

a " bodybuilders " physique (maybe Chris). Most of us probably couldn't

even if we wanted to. I know with Olympic lIfting you can and will get

very strong and muscular, but with the exception of the heavyweights

(who don't look like bodybuilders either) you tend to pack that

strength and muscle in a leaner package. And isn't that what Pavel

Tsatsouline is all about? And Ori for that matter? The benefits of

increasing functional strength, not building huge muscle bellies?

I think the term " bodybuilding " is rather loosely applied on this list

to to cover all forms of training with weights.

By the way, welcome back . Thought maybe you had become a

permanent absentee owner. It seems as if a lot of the usual posters,

with a few exceptions, went into hibernation at about the same time.

Thus is life I guess.

--

" I bind myself for life; I have chosen;

from now on my aim will be not to

search for someone who will please me,

but to please the one I have chosen... "

André Maurois

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

> On 7/19/05, Idol wrote:

> > Gene-

> >

> > >there's all this strutting about body building muscle. Is body building

> > >even good for your health? What is it beyond vanity? Why not just train

> > >for fitness and strength? Body building, at least in my eyes, is pretty

> > >much antithetical to the goals of the types of diet we try to stress here.

> > >Is it healthy to pack on all of that non functional muscle?

> > >Not that I've read any studies, but I'd bet that packing on 50 extra

> > >pounds of muscle that are not directly related to strength is correlated

> > >to a shorter life span. And for that matter, I'd bet that hugely muscular

> > >people, even if they are very strong, would have done better to have

> > >maximized strength on a sleeker frame.

> >

> > I'm pretty sure you're right, though I doubt there's much good hard data on

> > the subject.

> >

> >

> >

> > -

>

> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think most people on this list, at

> least those who have spoken up, train primarily for functional

> strength. Of course being functionally strong usually (though not

> always) means being leaner if not lighter and better looking as a

> result. I doubt very seriously most of us are interested in producing

> a " bodybuilders " physique (maybe Chris). Most of us probably couldn't

> even if we wanted to. I know with Olympic lIfting you can and will get

> very strong and muscular, but with the exception of the heavyweights

> (who don't look like bodybuilders either) you tend to pack that

> strength and muscle in a leaner package. And isn't that what Pavel

> Tsatsouline is all about? And Ori for that matter? The benefits of

> increasing functional strength, not building huge muscle bellies?

>

> I think the term " bodybuilding " is rather loosely applied on this list

> to to cover all forms of training with weights.

>

Well, it seems to me that is pretty explicitly into his body building, and

that's what I was commenting on. The rest of what you're saying - yeah - I agree

100%

[Guest guest]

> Is body building even good for your health? What is it beyond vanity? Why not

just train for fitness and strength? Body building, at least in my eyes, is

pretty much antithetical to the goals of the types of diet we try to stress

here. Is it healthy to pack on all of that non functional muscle?

>Not that I've read any studies, but I'd bet that packing on 50 extra pounds of

muscle that are not directly related to strength is correlated to a shorter life

span. And for that matter, I'd bet that hugely muscular people, even if they are

very strong, would have done better to have maximized strength on a sleeker

frame.

>

Well, this is a matter of degree I think. I think one can bulk up too

much, but usually that takes drugs. So if gets real big and

develops a real big jaw, then we'll know whassup.

Non functional muscle - what is that? I see your point concerning

vanity, but increasing muscle density does increase bone density, so

that is a positive result. Also, not all body builders are vain ... um,

but no, I can't name one off the top of my head. Strength training

leads to muscle hypertrophy and a faster metabolism, which could be

another plus. Heck, running (muscle endurance mainly) does it for my

legs, and it has great health benefits besides the rock solid calves

that would put most men on this list to shame. I do it because it calms

me and makes me feel top notch. Body building might do the same for

others with more white meat on their bones (fast twitch fibers).

Deanna

[Guest guest]

-

>Correct me if I am wrong, but I think most people on this list, at

>least those who have spoken up, train primarily for functional

>strength.

Oh, I'm sure that's true -- or at least functional strength and metabolic

health, which is certainly my primary concern.

>I doubt very seriously most of us are interested in producing

>a " bodybuilders " physique (maybe Chris).

does seem at least somewhat interested in muscle bulk for the sake of

appearances, which would seem like a legitimate definition of " body

building " , but I don't think any reasonable person would like to look like

the freaks you can see at bodybuilding shows. When I flip past one of

those on TV (particularly in high-def) I just laugh.

>By the way, welcome back . Thought maybe you had become a

>permanent absentee owner. It seems as if a lot of the usual posters,

>with a few exceptions, went into hibernation at about the same time.

>Thus is life I guess.

Thanks. What with numerous trips to the hospital (not for me) and other

events, I let a lot of things slide.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> there's all this strutting about body building muscle. Is body building even

> good for your health? What is it beyond vanity? Why not just train for

> fitness and strength? Body building, at least in my eyes, is pretty much

> antithetical to the goals of the types of diet we try to stress here. Is it

> healthy to pack on all of that non functional muscle?

> Not that I've read any studies, but I'd bet that packing on 50 extra pounds

> of muscle that are not directly related to strength is correlated to a

> shorter life span. And for that matter, I'd bet that hugely muscular people,

> even if they are very strong, would have done better to have maximized

> strength on a sleeker frame.

The only thing I train for hypertrophy is my calves, appended to a

lower body functional strength workout. I use low-rep regimens as the

basis for all my workouts, which build muscle, but emphasize strength

over hypertrophy, and my workout is almost entirely free of machines.

I only use machines in my calf workout, and even that is part free

weights (I do calf raises with a bar on my shoulders in squatting

position).

I weigh between 165 and 168, but can bench press 275 completely

unassisted. How do you figure my muscle is " functionally useless " ?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I weigh between 165 and 168, but can bench press 275 completely

>unassisted. How do you figure my muscle is " functionally useless " ?

My guess would be that Gene was talking about real-world function.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think most people on this list, at

> least those who have spoken up, train primarily for functional

> strength. Of course being functionally strong usually (though not

> always) means being leaner if not lighter and better looking as a

> result. I doubt very seriously most of us are interested in producing

> a " bodybuilders " physique (maybe Chris).

For the record, I think the " bodybuilder " physique is grotesque, and I

doubt it is possible to achieve on a healthy diet, even for someone

who has the genetics to build all that muscle volume.

Did I ever tout my muscle volume? The only datum I referenced was my

weight, and I imagine that a functionally stronger muscle of smaller

mass is more dense, thus, while mass would increase slower than

strength on a strength-training workout, weight would increase faster

in relation to mass than it would for someone on a bodybuilding

workout.

Pavel Tsatsouline is, from what I can tell, short and shredded, but

weighs 180 lbs. For his height (guessing from the videos that he is

about my height), and his body fat (which is, by looks, lower than

mine, I think), he could look considerably bigger at the same weight.

And he calls his workout approach " power bodybuilding. "

I don't want to look like a " bodybuilder, " but that doesn't mean I

don't have an interest in my physique. I would still like to look

muscular and shredded.

> Most of us probably couldn't

> even if we wanted to. I know with Olympic lIfting you can and will get

> very strong and muscular, but with the exception of the heavyweights

> (who don't look like bodybuilders either) you tend to pack that

> strength and muscle in a leaner package. And isn't that what Pavel

> Tsatsouline is all about? And Ori for that matter? The benefits of

> increasing functional strength, not building huge muscle bellies?

Right, but you can't possibly make massive gains in strength and no

gains in muscle mass. If you continue to make strength gains, you

will doubtlessly make muscle mass gains along the way.

> I think the term " bodybuilding " is rather loosely applied on this list

> to to cover all forms of training with weights.

I agree, although it necessarily implies that you are building up the

body. I do have in mind partly how I look when I train, but that is

not all, and that doesn't mean I want to look like the sterotypical

" bodybuilder " physique.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> >I weigh between 165 and 168, but can bench press 275 completely

> >unassisted. How do you figure my muscle is " functionally useless " ?

>

> My guess would be that Gene was talking about real-world function.

What is that supposed to mean then? I thought he was talking about

how training for hypertrophy with medium-high reps and machines would

cause the gains in muscle volume to be out of balance with the

strength of the muscle itself, which in turn would be out of balance

with the strength of stabilizing muscles. Thus, bodybuilders end up

with a much larger physique without the strength to match it, and they

wind up with, still, a large amount of strength that, were they to use

it in the real world or anything besides machines, they would injure

themselves with.

If the question is whether or not I regularly have to use the max

strength of my chest in a real-world situation, well, no. Although I

think having that strength has its advantages anyway. But if that's

what Gene meant, the same (relatively useless) logic could be applied

to kettlebell training. Additionally, Gene seemed to be contrasting

what I do with strength training, which IS what I do.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I don't want to look like a " bodybuilder, " but that doesn't mean I

>don't have an interest in my physique. I would still like to look

>muscular and shredded.

I'd certainly like to look better, but I have to wonder whether it's really

a good idea to drop enough fat to look shredded. What bodyfat percentage

is actually necessary for that sort of definition anyway?

-

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

>

> > Is body building even good for your health? What is it beyond vanity? Why

not

> just train for fitness and strength? Body building, at least in my eyes, is

> pretty much antithetical to the goals of the types of diet we try to stress

> here. Is it healthy to pack on all of that non functional muscle?

> >Not that I've read any studies, but I'd bet that packing on 50 extra pounds

of

> muscle that are not directly related to strength is correlated to a shorter

life

> span. And for that matter, I'd bet that hugely muscular people, even if they

are

> very strong, would have done better to have maximized strength on a sleeker

> frame.

> >

> Well, this is a matter of degree I think. I think one can bulk up too

> much, but usually that takes drugs. So if gets real big and

> develops a real big jaw, then we'll know whassup.

>

>

Well, drugs accentuate it, but surely you agree that there are people who train

to look good and put on lots of muscle, without necessarily become stronger, or

much stronger. The question is whether this is good for you or not.

>Non functional muscle - what is that?

I think that this is clear. Do you really not understand it? If I train to put

on muscle, concentrate on that, put on quite a few pounds of it, and am not as

strong as I could have been by training differently, and this muscle really

doesn't make me much stronger, especially in ways that would be useful in any

way - say in sports, or in situations that one may encounter in life, then I'd

say that it is non functional muscle.

>I see your point concerning

> vanity, but increasing muscle density does increase bone density, so

> that is a positive result.

I wouldn't argue that there are no positive results from adding muscle. But what

I wonder about is whether there are diminishing returns, and when that might

start happening.

>Also, not all body builders are vain ... um,

> but no, I can't name one off the top of my head.

It's different to say that body building is a vain enterprise, than to say that

all body builders are vain people.

> Strength training

> leads to muscle hypertrophy and a faster metabolism, which could be

> another plus. Heck, running (muscle endurance mainly) does it for my

> legs, and it has great health benefits besides the rock solid calves

> that would put most men on this list to shame. I do it because it calms

> me and makes me feel top notch. Body building might do the same for

> others with more white meat on their bones (fast twitch fibers).

Don't really get your point about running, or about solid muscle. I think that

the point is pretty clear. putting on lots of extra muscle through body building

techniques which emphasize hypertrophy rather than strength or other sporting or

life results is (primarily) for appearance, and secondarily might have some

benefits, though those benefits would probably be minor compared to the benefits

from training primarily for strength. I

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

> Chris-

>

> >I weigh between 165 and 168, but can bench press 275 completely

> >unassisted. How do you figure my muscle is " functionally useless " ?

>

> My guess would be that Gene was talking about real-world function.

Well,both does functional and strength training (kettlebells, for

instance), and body building. The component where you train simply for

appearance, and brag about it as such, is (imo) non functional. As far as the

bench press - you often quote Pavel Tsatsouline. Why don't you quote him on the

bench press?

[Guest guest]

>

> Did I ever tout my muscle volume? The only datum I referenced was my

> weight, and I imagine that a functionally stronger muscle of smaller

> mass is more dense, thus, while mass would increase slower than

> strength on a strength-training workout, weight would increase faster

> in relation to mass than it would for someone on a bodybuilding

> workout.

LOL - I'd say yes - by bragging about how your weight, at your height, would

classify you as obese by some misguided standards - sure - you're bragging about

your muscle VOLUME.

>

> Pavel Tsatsouline is, from what I can tell, short and shredded, but

> weighs 180 lbs. For his height (guessing from the videos that he is

> about my height), and his body fat (which is, by looks, lower than

> mine, I think), he could look considerably bigger at the same weight.

> And he calls his workout approach " power bodybuilding. "

>

Actually, I think that he is about 5'11 " . He is sleek. You way considerably more

for your height than he does for his.

> I don't want to look like a " bodybuilder, " but that doesn't mean I

> don't have an interest in my physique. I would still like to look

> muscular and shredded.

And to the extent that you work on that, you are body building, aren't you?

>

> > Most of us probably couldn't

> > even if we wanted to. I know with Olympic lIfting you can and will get

> > very strong and muscular, but with the exception of the heavyweights

> > (who don't look like bodybuilders either) you tend to pack that

> > strength and muscle in a leaner package. And isn't that what Pavel

> > Tsatsouline is all about? And Ori for that matter? The benefits of

> > increasing functional strength, not building huge muscle bellies?

>

> Right, but you can't possibly make massive gains in strength and no

> gains in muscle mass. If you continue to make strength gains, you

> will doubtlessly make muscle mass gains along the way.

but you won't make nearly as much gain in mass as if you trained for that

SPECIFICALLY. Surely you understand the point.

>

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> The only thing I train for hypertrophy is my calves, appended to a

> lower body functional strength workout. I use low-rep regimens as the

> basis for all my workouts, which build muscle, but emphasize strength

> over hypertrophy, and my workout is almost entirely free of machines.

> I only use machines in my calf workout, and even that is part free

> weights (I do calf raises with a bar on my shoulders in squatting

> position).

I gave up on calf training. Figured my calves were trained by

everything else I did including walking. I thought the only possible

reason for training my calves was for looks. Then when I got into

olympic lifting no one ever mentioned peep about my calves which was

fine by me.

Curiously though, when I started using these plyometric trainers

called " Strength Shoes " my calves did grow. But that was a side effect

(although touted as " the " effect in the bodybuilding mags but not the

sports mags). I was using the shoes as trainers to keep from losing my

speed, quickness, and jumping ability for sport as I was getting

older. Worked too. Very hard workout using leveraged bodyweight.

http://snipurl.com/gd0x

> I weigh between 165 and 168, but can bench press 275 completely

> unassisted. How do you figure my muscle is " functionally useless " ?

LOL! My olympic trainer (and olympic lifting thought in general)

thinks the bench press is basically useless, and adds nothing to

functional everyday real world strength and certainly nothing to

competitive weightlifting. Plus, a big chest seems to interfere with

flexibility at the top of the movements, so he cautioned me against

doing bench presses. It should be noted though that his wife (herself

an olympic lifter who was VERY strong in a small petite package) did

complain about the size of his chest, LOL!

I did do them however, but strictly for appearance sake. So that is

one aspect of " bodybuilding " I never gave up. But I should say that

one can use " bodybuilding " movements to gain strength, whether that is

the optimal way to do so is another question. But there is no doubt,

IMO, that for the purposes of " bodyshaping " i.e creating a specific

" look " , " bodybuilding " movements have no peer.

--

" I bind myself for life; I have chosen;

from now on my aim will be not to

search for someone who will please me,

but to please the one I have chosen... "

André Maurois

[Guest guest]

>I like the BMIs because I can see how much extra weight I have for my

>height. It's a badge of honor to be " overweight " with a six-pack, but

>I'll know I've achieved a lot when I'm " obese " ! Lol!

>

>

And when you get there, post up a new photo with the caption:

Masterjohn

height: 5'7 "

weight *** lbs

BMI: 30+

Obese, by government standards!

Deanna

This is EXACTLY what my husband experienced recently. He eats an NT-style diet,

and works out consistently at the gym at his corporate office. He is 6'6 " , and

weighs in around 205. On a recent health physical, where his BMI was

calculated, and percentage body fat measured (sorry, don't remember the exact

numbers), they determined he was also obese. When he told me that, I laughed so

hard and long, I lost 5 lbs

Rebekah

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> > I weigh between 165 and 168, but can bench press 275 completely

> > unassisted. How do you figure my muscle is " functionally useless " ?

>

> LOL! My olympic trainer (and olympic lifting thought in general)

> thinks the bench press is basically useless, and adds nothing to

> functional everyday real world strength and certainly nothing to

> competitive weightlifting.

I was referring to the strength of the muscle in relation to its size,

and the ability to exercise a free and stable movement with heavy

weight. Other than those criteria, any other for " functional every

day real world " whatever is loaded with subjectivity such that isn't a

real criterion. The " real world every day " use of my bench press

could be that it makes me look tougher or that I look better with my

shirt off. I would like to see what the real world every day benefits

of the clean and press are for someone who doesn't engage in any kind

of " artificial " fitness sport.

Obviously were I to enter a competition featuring the bench press, my

bench press would certainly benefit me for competitive lifting!

My point was that I am not loading on huge amounts of mass at the

expense of strength.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/19/05, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> On 7/19/05, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

>

> > Correct me if I am wrong, but I think most people on this list, at

> > least those who have spoken up, train primarily for functional

> > strength. Of course being functionally strong usually (though not

> > always) means being leaner if not lighter and better looking as a

> > result. I doubt very seriously most of us are interested in producing

> > a " bodybuilders " physique (maybe Chris).

>

> For the record, I think the " bodybuilder " physique is grotesque, and I

> doubt it is possible to achieve on a healthy diet, even for someone

> who has the genetics to build all that muscle volume.

When I think of a bodybuilders physique, I think of someone who is

training largely for looks sake, rather than for health. Hypertrophy

comes first and whatever other benefits accrue is secondary. Clearly

there are many points along that spectrum, but I think bodybuilding is

not the best way to build strength, even though many attempt to use it

for that purpose.

I wasn't implying that was your primary goal, but I do think you want

to create a certain " look " if you will, at least from what I have

gathered from your posts, and that is usually achieved by bodybuilding

moves like the bench, rather than moves like olympic lifting and maybe

kettlebells.

Nor do I think there is anything wrong with that, whether or not it is

optimal. Benches and some back exercises were for me about creating a

certain look, which I knew I could not achieve unless I concentrated

on hypertrophy, which meant bodybuilding movements. It took finding an

esoteric approach by Larry , the first Mr. Olympia, before I

noticed any hypertrophic gains with my chest, even though I was plenty

strong in the bench.

http://www.larryscott.com/bio/index.cfm

> Did I ever tout my muscle volume? The only datum I referenced was my

> weight, and I imagine that a functionally stronger muscle of smaller

> mass is more dense, thus, while mass would increase slower than

> strength on a strength-training workout, weight would increase faster

> in relation to mass than it would for someone on a bodybuilding

> workout.

Agreed. I for one was not necessarily referencing your immediate

comments but rather was responding to and Gene. When I mentioned

you I was just giving my overall impression and even that I qualified

with a " maybe " .

> Pavel Tsatsouline is, from what I can tell, short and shredded, but

> weighs 180 lbs. For his height (guessing from the videos that he is

> about my height), and his body fat (which is, by looks, lower than

> mine, I think), he could look considerably bigger at the same weight.

> And he calls his workout approach " power bodybuilding. "

Yes, there is certainly a looseness to the terminology applied by most

of us. But I do know that in one of his books he said his specific

goal was to bring the benefits of olympic lifting to the masses. So

maybe that is why he coined the term but I'm just speculating.

And it should be said, all the wealth in fitness began to occur

(outside of a few like Bob Hoffman, who got left behind and resented

it most of his life, or more specifically resented Joe Weider) when

bodybuilding was marketed to the masses.

http://snipurl.com/gd1d

Before that everybody did olympic lifting, and OL just does not lend

itself, because of the technical aspects, to mass marketing. The

learning curve is too high.

> I don't want to look like a " bodybuilder, " but that doesn't mean I

> don't have an interest in my physique. I would still like to look

> muscular and shredded.

A layman's build which can look quite nice if done right. But I don't

know about being shredded. That only happens for me when I am very low

carb *and* aerobically quite active. It seems the fat level has to go

below what may be healthy for the average guy/gal.

> > Most of us probably couldn't

> > even if we wanted to. I know with Olympic lifting you can and will get

> > very strong and muscular, but with the exception of the heavyweights

> > (who don't look like bodybuilders either) you tend to pack that

> > strength and muscle in a leaner package. And isn't that what Pavel

> > Tsatsouline is all about? And Ori for that matter? The benefits of

> > increasing functional strength, not building huge muscle bellies?

>

> Right, but you can't possibly make massive gains in strength and no

> gains in muscle mass. If you continue to make strength gains, you

> will doubtlessly make muscle mass gains along the way.

Sure, but with OL its in a much leaner package. Get a video of an OL

competition if you can. One of the things that stick out, at least for

me, is how strong these guys/gals are relative to their mass. Lean and

muscular to say the least, but certainly don't look like your typical

" competitive " bodybuilder.

> > I think the term " bodybuilding " is rather loosely applied on this list

> > to to cover all forms of training with weights.

>

> I agree, although it necessarily implies that you are building up the

> body. I do have in mind partly how I look when I train, but that is

> not all, and that doesn't mean I want to look like the sterotypical

> " bodybuilder " physique.

No, I'm sorry if you took my comment that way. But I explained what I

meant above.

--

" I bind myself for life; I have chosen;

from now on my aim will be not to

search for someone who will please me,

but to please the one I have chosen... "

André Maurois

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>As far as the bench press - you often quote Pavel Tsatsouline. Why don't

>you quote him on the bench press?

Why don't I quote him? Because I wasn't commenting on particular lifts and

exercises. But yeah, he takes a relatively dim view of bench pressing.

-

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

> Gene-

>

> >As far as the bench press - you often quote Pavel Tsatsouline. Why don't

> >you quote him on the bench press?

>

> Why don't I quote him? Because I wasn't commenting on particular lifts and

> exercises. But yeah, he takes a relatively dim view of bench pressing.

>

>

Sorry - I didn't mean that question for you - it was for Chris. Sorry.

[Guest guest]

> >Non functional muscle - what is that?

>I think that this is clear. Do you really not understand it? If I train to put

on muscle, concentrate on that, put on quite a few pounds of it, and am not as

strong as I could have been by training differently, and this muscle really

doesn't make me much stronger, especially in ways that would be useful in any

way - say in sports, or in situations that one may encounter in life, then I'd

say that it is non functional muscle.

>

>

A muscle that can perform its function is a functional muscle. If I can

flex my elbow and supinate my forearm, then my biceps brachii is a

functional muscle. If I break my humerus, then that muscle is

non-functional. Body builders have functional muscles.

You may be referring to functional fitness, a phrase which came into

vogue in the 90s. Are body builders functionally fit might be a better

question; certainly they generally don't possess the flexibility and

agility to function in the world as well as, say, a distance runner or

tennis player. Women body builders fare better in this regard. And

aren't there different classes of body builders?

Muscle strength is defined as the ability to perform a single repetition

with maximum resistance. Strength is not the goal of body builders

generally, as you noted, but strength gains do result from training like

body builders generally train. Things that control strength are; age,

gender, limb length (longer levers), muscle length, tendon insertion and

muscle fiber type. Those body builders (or strength trainers)

possessing fast twitch fibers will have greater gains in strength and

hypertrophy. And hypertrophy *is* an adaptation to strength training.

I realize hypertrophy may be the singular goal, but that size comes as a

result of strength. Could you get stronger by training differently,

yes, as you said. Those out to get buff do generally gain lots of

strength in the process.

> I wouldn't argue that there are no positive results from adding

> muscle. But what I wonder about is whether there are diminishing

> returns, and when that might start happening.

Yes, body building can cause injury to joints. If one follows the diet

most do, well that's not a good thing. Drugs, bad. It's a good

question in general. I think training like a body builder without

competing like one might be okay.

Look at Jack LaLanne. He was a body builder, but he also had/has a

well-rounded fitness program. I remember watching him first on TV when

I was 4, then tow 70 boats around Long Beach harbor for his 70th b-day.

I worked for his health club long ago. The guy is in his 90s now,

swims, stretches and does strength training. Certainly his training has

not had deleterious results for him.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>This is EXACTLY what my husband experienced recently. He eats an NT-style

diet, and works out consistently at the gym at his corporate office. He is

6'6 " , and weighs in around 205. On a recent health physical, where his BMI was

calculated, and percentage body fat measured (sorry, don't remember the exact

numbers), they determined he was also obese. When he told me that, I laughed so

hard and long, I lost 5 lbs

>

>Rebekah

>

That's what irks me to no end. And what if health insurance starts

charging more for these numbers? It is unfair to use this tool when

body fat tests abound. I wonder how many of Price's natives would be

considered obese under the BMI tool?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

>

> > >Non functional muscle - what is that?

> >I think that this is clear. Do you really not understand it? If I train to

put

> on muscle, concentrate on that, put on quite a few pounds of it, and am not as

> strong as I could have been by training differently, and this muscle really

> doesn't make me much stronger, especially in ways that would be useful in any

> way - say in sports, or in situations that one may encounter in life, then I'd

> say that it is non functional muscle.

> >

> >

> A muscle that can perform its function is a functional muscle.

But you are changing meanings. Obviously, what isn't meant is that a bicep,

swollen beyond all recognition by hypertrophy will refuse to work at all.

>If I can

> flex my elbow and supinate my forearm, then my biceps brachii is a

> functional muscle. If I break my humerus, then that muscle is

> non-functional. Body builders have functional muscles.

but that's not what's meant, and you get nowhere by shifting the meanings of the

words and phrases that we're using. I think you know what is meant by

non-functional muscle. It is hypertrophied muscle in which the extra bulk simply

serves no practical purpose. No one has ever meant that the arm or leg ceases to

function.

>

> You may be referring to functional fitness, a phrase which came into

> vogue in the 90s. Are body builders functionally fit might be a better

> question;

It, to some degree is the same question.

> certainly they generally don't possess the flexibility and

> agility to function in the world as well as, say, a distance runner or

> tennis player. Women body builders fare better in this regard. And

> aren't there different classes of body builders?

Well, body building isn't a sport. Body building is training to have a certain

appearance. Depending on the degree and how one pursues it the results can be

counterproductive to other athletic endeavors. Isn't this pretty obvious?

>

> Muscle strength is defined as the ability to perform a single repetition

> with maximum resistance. Strength is not the goal of body builders

> generally, as you noted, but strength gains do result from training like

> body builders generally train.

Not disagreeing, but they are accidental, for the most part. And, if you took,

say, an Olympic weight lifter, and made him exclusively a body builder, would he

lose or gain strength? My guess is he'd lose it. But, right, and untrained

person would obviously gain strength from body building.

> Things that control strength are; age,

> gender, limb length (longer levers), muscle length, tendon insertion and

> muscle fiber type. Those body builders (or strength trainers)

> possessing fast twitch fibers will have greater gains in strength and

> hypertrophy. And hypertrophy *is* an adaptation to strength training.

> I realize hypertrophy may be the singular goal, but that size comes as a

> result of strength. Could you get stronger by training differently,

> yes, as you said. Those out to get buff do generally gain lots of

> strength in the process.

But again, the point is obvious. At what point to great gains in hypertrophy

combined with very moderate gains in strength become counterproductive to

health, especially long term health.

>

> > I wouldn't argue that there are no positive results from adding

> > muscle. But what I wonder about is whether there are diminishing

> > returns, and when that might start happening.

>

> Yes, body building can cause injury to joints. If one follows the diet

> most do, well that's not a good thing. Drugs, bad. It's a good

> question in general. I think training like a body builder without

> competing like one might be okay.

>

I dunno. Really. I think that people who are 5'8 " and 200lbs of body building

type muscles probably have shorter life spans. Do you have evidence to the

contrary?

> Look at Jack LaLanne. He was a body builder, but he also had/has a

> well-rounded fitness program. I remember watching him first on TV when

> I was 4, then tow 70 boats around Long Beach harbor for his 70th b-day.

> I worked for his health club long ago. The guy is in his 90s now,

> swims, stretches and does strength training. Certainly his training has

> not had deleterious results for him.

But, again, quite obviously, the bulk of his training, especially after a

certain point was not focusing on body building, was it?

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Well, body building isn't a sport. Body building is training to have a

>certain appearance. Depending on the degree and how one pursues it the

>results can be counterproductive to other athletic endeavors. Isn't this

>pretty obvious?

Inasmuch as it's a physical activity and there are bodybuilding

competitions, isn't it a sport, at least of a sort?

-