Re: Chris's Obesity (was Warrior Menu)

[Guest guest]

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

> > 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.

A side point: my weight makes me " overweight " by the BMI, but not obese.

Anyway, again, I referred to my weight, which, while loosely

corresponding to muscle volume, was explicitly distinguished in my

post from volume, in that weight can be gained with less density and

more volume OR with more density and less 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.

Oh, ok. He always looked shorter to me in pics and on video.

> > 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?

It's really a matter of semantics, but in general, as I already

stated, the center of my workout is strength-gaining in the exercises

I do. So yes, I work on it, and if you want to call that bodybuilding

that's fine, but it doesn't take a back seat, as far as I can see, to

functional strength training.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

> It's really a matter of semantics, but in general, as I already

> stated, the center of my workout is strength-gaining in the exercises

> I do. So yes, I work on it, and if you want to call that bodybuilding

> that's fine, but it doesn't take a back seat, as far as I can see, to

> functional strength training.

I meant that functional strength training isn't in the back seat.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

> 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?

Is a swim suit competition a sport? I wouldn't call body building a sport. It's

way closer to a beauty contest, at least as far as the competitions go. And if

you exclude the competitions, are you willing to include ALL things which

involve physical activity as sports?

[Guest guest]

Gene,

>>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.

>

>

I didn't mean to " change meanings " for I was trying to determine what

exactly you meant, honestly. I had never heard this terminology.

>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.

>

>

Thank you for the clarification. The few bodybuilding freaks that get

to the point of bulking up so much that their bodies don't serve them

very well any more are few and far between. I did have an idea what you

meant when you originally 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? "

> 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?

Yes, the degree does matter. I have known nicely buff, agile, flexible

bodybuilders in the past. They are not super sized either, though. But

they are bodybuilders nonetheless.

>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.

>

>

Yes, the regular 99 pound weakling trying to get the girls will gain

strength on a bodybuilding training program. Those stronger, like the

trained Olympic weight lifter would probably lose gains.

>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 don't know at what point. There are so many factors involved. Not

many can be hypertrophic enough to be on the cover of Muscle & Fitness

in the first place.

>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?

>

>

Wait a minute. I quoted your original where you are asking/asserting it

is unhealthy. Burden of proof lies where? If you think they have

shorter life spans, why so? I would argue the bb diet/steroid use

myself if I were you, for we know how nasty that is. Some bb train

aerobically, so that might be points for them. I have not seen any

studies on the health of bb one way or the other.

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

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

>

I dunno. It could be that he trains just as hard within waning strength

ability but his body doesn't respond the way it used to. Let's take

Schwarzenegger. Or heck, we can take any athlete in terms of their

" career " and how it waxes and wanes. It's not like you can be at the

top of a sport forever, no matter how hard you train. So yes, athletes

will not focus so much on training over time. Distance runners may be

an exception, many of them go on a long time.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

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

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

>>

>>

>

>Is a swim suit competition a sport? I wouldn't call body building a sport. It's

way closer to a beauty contest, at least as far as the competitions go. And if

you exclude the competitions, are you willing to include ALL things which

involve physical activity as sports?

>

Wikipedia says it's a sport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodybuilding

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Is a swim suit competition a sport? I wouldn't call body building a sport.

>It's way closer to a beauty contest, at least as far as the competitions

>go. And if you exclude the competitions, are you willing to include ALL

>things which involve physical activity as sports?

I have every bit as dim a view of mainstream bodybuilding as you do, and in

a purist sense, I wouldn't call it a sport, but it seems to be viewed as

one by plenty of people, so as far as popular usage goes, it may be

one. Competition, though, is obviously a requirement of any kind of

sports. Otherwise the word would be meaningless.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> >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?

> >

> >

> Wait a minute. I quoted your original where you are asking/asserting it

> is unhealthy. Burden of proof lies where? If you think they have

> shorter life spans, why so? I would argue the bb diet/steroid use

> myself if I were you, for we know how nasty that is. Some bb train

> aerobically, so that might be points for them. I have not seen any

> studies on the health of bb one way or the other.

>

I wasn't trying to suggest anything other than I suspect that it may not be

healthy to carry around the extra weight in proportion to lesser strenght, as

opposed to the greater strength at lesser weight that less of a body building

emphasis would give. I am not claiming to know one way or the other.

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

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

> >

> I dunno. It could be that he trains just as hard within waning strength

> ability but his body doesn't respond the way it used to.

But I think that his whole point was to train for health, not appearance, though

at one point, I guess he was more into his appearance.

>Let's take

> Schwarzenegger. Or heck, we can take any athlete in terms of their

> " career " and how it waxes and wanes. It's not like you can be at the

> top of a sport forever, no matter how hard you train. So yes, athletes

> will not focus so much on training over time. Distance runners may be

> an exception, many of them go on a long time.

I don't think that I suggested that someone could be at the top of their sport

forever. But I wouldn't call Schwarzenegger an athlete.

[Guest guest]

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

>

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

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

> >>

> >>

> >

> >Is a swim suit competition a sport? I wouldn't call body building a sport.

It's

> way closer to a beauty contest, at least as far as the competitions go. And if

> you exclude the competitions, are you willing to include ALL things which

> involve physical activity as sports?

> >

> Wikipedia says it's a sport.

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodybuilding

>

This must be a joke, right? I really don't care what they say.

[Guest guest]

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

> Gene-

>

> >Is a swim suit competition a sport? I wouldn't call body building a sport.

> >It's way closer to a beauty contest, at least as far as the competitions

> >go. And if you exclude the competitions, are you willing to include ALL

> >things which involve physical activity as sports?

>

> I have every bit as dim a view of mainstream bodybuilding as you do, and in

> a purist sense, I wouldn't call it a sport, but it seems to be viewed as

> one by plenty of people, so as far as popular usage goes, it may be

> one. Competition, though, is obviously a requirement of any kind of

> sports. Otherwise the word would be meaningless.

>

Well, the fact that competition is a requirement of sport, obviously doesn't

imply that all competitions are sport. That it is viewed by plenty of people as

a sport, well, I dunno. Is looking a certain way a sport? Not to me. Is this a

sport in the same sense as, say, marathon running?

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>But I wouldn't call Schwarzenegger an athlete.

Back in the day, didn't he do some fairly serious lifting? I mean the real

deal, free weights and all?

-

[Guest guest]

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

> 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,

Well okay, in relation to bench pressing it certainly is functional.

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

> weight.

But then that doesn't necessarily have any relation to the " real

world " which is what we are talking about, eh?

> Other than those criteria, any other for " functional every

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

> real criterion.

Not sure I agree with that. In this discussion we are using " real

world " as a term of art, at least I am, and I think we all have an

idea of what we generally mean. In this discussion (and I could be

wrong), real world is something that assists us in our

tasks/activities for everyday living, including playing sports.

> 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.

Sure, but I don't think anyone is thinking in those terms, but I could

be wrong. At any rate I have no desire to press my understanding of

the term in a precise legal manner. I'm not sure that is what this

discussion is about. See paragraph above.

> 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.

Well the advantages for " non-artificial " sports are obvious and well

known (although I wouldn't classify an activity such as " who can lift

the most " as artificial), be it the typical team sports or the other

more individual style sports, including golf. The movements mimic many

of the basic sport movements, and involve speed and technique,

essential to most sports, not just strength.

As for everyday living, same is true although in a more general sense,

whether its lifting boxes, climbing stairs, chasing kids, or

whathaveyou. You don't need or necessarily get the optimal benefits of

that from bodybuilding/bodyshaping, although an untrained person will

certainly benefit some.

Tasks were easier when I lifted, but they got ridiculously easy when I

got into olympic lifting. In fact for me personally, I got into

nutrition because of the difficulty I had running around the block

(chasing someone) after being sick for awhile. I got into lifting a

few years later because of the difficulty I had walking up a hillside

at my college (even after getting into nutrition), at least by my

standards. Two mundane every day tasks that shook my apathy. But the

focus on hypertrophy, which *is* the foundation of bodybuilding, isn't

really optimal in my opinion, even when adapted/tweaked by commoners.

But it certainly is not without its benefits.

Having said that, I once was deep into bodybuilding and did benefit to

some extent. Here is a guy that combined both his whole life and still

looks good at 77.

http://www.cbass.com/Hilligenn.htm

> 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.

Well I never argued that you were. But whatever you might be doing

specifically, although you may disagree, I think Gene's general point

stands.

--

" 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]

On 7/19/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> 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.

Jack LaLanne explicitly gave up bodybuilding very early on and got

into what he called " bodyshaping " and training for strength. He has

lasted a long time but I must say his old time bodybuilding peers

still living look much better than him, I think in part cuz he has

adopted some ideas about weight (keep getting smaller) as you get

older and also his diet.

--

" 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]

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

> Gene-

>

> >But I wouldn't call Schwarzenegger an athlete.

>

> Back in the day, didn't he do some fairly serious lifting? I mean the real

> deal, free weights and all?

>

>

> -

Besides the fact he was Mr. Olympia 7 times (I think), he and his

buddy Franco Columbo did some crazy lifting back in the day, according

to his autobiography from years ago.

--

" 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-

>Well, the fact that competition is a requirement of sport, obviously

>doesn't imply that all competitions are sport. That it is viewed by plenty

>of people as a sport, well, I dunno. Is looking a certain way a sport? Not

>to me. Is this a sport in the same sense as, say, marathon running?

I'd prefer not to call it a sport, but many people do call bodybuilding a

sport, and inasmuch as definitions derive from usage rather than vice

versa, I'm afraid it is what it is, even if we think it's absurd.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>But I wouldn't call Schwarzenegger an athlete.

" Back in the day, didn't he do some fairly serious lifting? I mean the real

deal, free weights and all? "

Ok - let me clarify - he wasn't a competitive athlete as far as I know.

[Guest guest]

Re: Chris's Obesity (was Warrior Menu)

Gene-

>Well, the fact that competition is a requirement of sport, obviously

>doesn't imply that all competitions are sport. That it is viewed by plenty

>of people as a sport, well, I dunno. Is looking a certain way a sport? Not

>to me. Is this a sport in the same sense as, say, marathon running?

" I'd prefer not to call it a sport, but many people do call bodybuilding a

sport, and inasmuch as definitions derive from usage rather than vice

versa, I'm afraid it is what it is, even if we think it's absurd. "

This is an excellent point, and I'm going to try to wriggle out of it. Yes -

definitions derive from actual usage, and meanings of words should not be

changed to suit the particular purpose. But look at the context here. I

think we both agree that probably the majority would refer to it as a sport.

But, also, I'd say, a sizeable minority would not consider it a sport. So,

in a way it is both a sport, AND not a sport, depending on the emphasis that

any the particular person has in classifying it. This is not so much an

issue of definition, but classification, and I'm not so sure that the same

criterion of usage applies here. In considering the issue, we are

considering how sport is defined, and there, I think there is enough

variability that you can say 'I don't consider body building a sport' and

not be at variance with usage. It's a matter of opinion, not usage.

-

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

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

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

> > weight.

>

> But then that doesn't necessarily have any relation to the " real

> world " which is what we are talking about, eh?

Well again, my original perspective of what this discussion was about

was a muscle that looks good (big, defined) but performs its function

sub-optimally, versus a muscle that packs in optimal function

(strength and ability to carry out its associated movements with

stability) with the minimum of size necessary. And after Gene's

subsequent comments, it still seems to me this was his original point.

I'm sorry if I'm subjecting a secondary point of your own to Gene's

point. It's just that I was, perhaps inappropriately-- lumping the

comments together.

> > Other than those criteria, any other for " functional every

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

> > real criterion.

>

> Not sure I agree with that. In this discussion we are using " real

> world " as a term of art, at least I am, and I think we all have an

> idea of what we generally mean. In this discussion (and I could be

> wrong), real world is something that assists us in our

> tasks/activities for everyday living, including playing sports.

Ok, well working the chest and triceps as in bench press would add

strength to a punch, if one were ever in the unfortunate position that

one would have to throw one, and would give one more versatility and

endurance in sex, assuming missionary position or some variant

thereof.

> > 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.

>

> Sure, but I don't think anyone is thinking in those terms, but I could

> be wrong. At any rate I have no desire to press my understanding of

> the term in a precise legal manner. I'm not sure that is what this

> discussion is about. See paragraph above.

Well no, they aren't, but I was adding them in there because " every

day " functions like a better golf swing are no more " every day real

world " needs than looking good with a shirt off. At that point, it's

just whatever you like and want out of the weight lifting. Golf is a

niche interest.

> > 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.

>

> Well the advantages for " non-artificial " sports are obvious and well

> known (although I wouldn't classify an activity such as " who can lift

> the most " as artificial), be it the typical team sports or the other

> more individual style sports, including golf. The movements mimic many

> of the basic sport movements, and involve speed and technique,

> essential to most sports, not just strength.

I guess what I meant by " artificial " is that adding various sports is

adding a dimension to the " every day life " that isn't a necessary

function. In other words, walking up stairs and lifting boxes and

such are true every day uses that everyone will encounter, but playing

football or golf are an addition to that of different movements, and

in the context of this discussion, it is, to me, essentially adding a

dimension to artificially change the balance of what is considered

" every day real world " movements. Taking an interest in golf, after

all, isn't any different than taking an interest in bench pressing.

So if your golf swing is an " every day " function for you, I could just

add my bench pressing, which I take an interest in, as an " every day "

function for me, in which bench press training is beneficial for its

own sake-- to my every day real world function of bench pressing.

> As for everyday living, same is true although in a more general sense,

> whether its lifting boxes, climbing stairs, chasing kids, or

> whathaveyou. You don't need or necessarily get the optimal benefits of

> that from bodybuilding/bodyshaping, although an untrained person will

> certainly benefit some.

Ok, agreed.

> Tasks were easier when I lifted, but they got ridiculously easy when I

> got into olympic lifting. In fact for me personally, I got into

> nutrition because of the difficulty I had running around the block

> (chasing someone) after being sick for awhile. I got into lifting a

> few years later because of the difficulty I had walking up a hillside

> at my college (even after getting into nutrition), at least by my

> standards. Two mundane every day tasks that shook my apathy. But the

> focus on hypertrophy, which *is* the foundation of bodybuilding, isn't

> really optimal in my opinion, even when adapted/tweaked by commoners.

> But it certainly is not without its benefits.

I'm wondering why you were chasing people around the block, but won't

press you to answer ;-) Or... you lived in a bad neighborhood once if

I remember. Throwing a punch could possibly have been useful then?

(Bench press.)

I agree the focus on hypertrophy isn't optimal. I haven't questioned that.

> Well I never argued that you were. But whatever you might be doing

> specifically, although you may disagree, I think Gene's general point

> stands.

I think his general point stands too. But he originally made it in

reference to my own workout, and I think, while I do have hypertrophy

as a goal-- and I am still at a point where I think I could benefit

from hypertrophy, and a good portion of my hypertrophy in the past was

beneficial to my health-- my workout emphasizes functional strength

over hypertrophy. There are quite a few guys in the gym who are

bigger than me but can lift less than me in certain exercises, which I

think would be a natural result of a hypertrophy-centered regimen.

Chris