Students to Be Graded on Weight

[Cash]

Too liberal?

[Salvation122]

No, too stupid.

[Cain]

Cain, I've been in a lot of street fights. Way more then my fair share. And 9 times out of ten, they try to push me or tackle me first. Of course, that's just my experience. Maybe your own extensive experience is different.

My experience has been pushes or suckerpunches for the lead-off. Usually, when I watch two idiots fight, they start by shoving, then grab and bear each other to the ground.

I'm a self-admitted headhunter; but I also use a trappng style, so making someone put his guard up is a perfect setup in my book. If I hit, I hurt him; if he blocks, his arms are now in perfect trapping position. Then again, that's me; YMMV is the rule and not the exception.

Kneecap shots are good, but you need a strong kick. Kicks to the side of the kneecap and back are best, one being more damaging than the other. Back of the knee is best just for taking your prey to the floor, not disabling like the side kicks. There's nothing like kicking someone's knee into angles it was never made to go.

I use a lot of jamming kicks and stomps. Technically, they're kicks as well, and they're very effective at disabling an opponent. A strong stomp can fracture the metatarsals easily, and that slows down anyone. I don't go for the knees as much, they're easier to defend, but kneecap shots can be quite effective in a practical situation.

Muscle, however, can be a better edge under those circumstances, since it gives you both mass to throw around - more of it, actually, than fat would, per cubic inch - and additional strength.

Already accounted for that. Given equal muscle, added mass from fat can make a huge difference in a ground fight. Leverage and mass are what help you more than strength. Strength is still important, as is general conditioning; but in the clinch it's leverage and mass that really make the difference.

[3278]

Muscle, however, can be a better edge under those circumstances, since it gives you both mass to throw around - more of it, actually, than fat would, per cubic inch - and additional strength.

Already accounted for that. Given equal muscle, added mass from fat can make a huge difference in a ground fight.

And given equal fat, added mass from muscle can make a much larger difference in a ground fight. You're giving a choice between 50 fat + 50 muscle and 50 muscle, which isn't a particularly useful comparison. How about 90 muscle + 10 fat, versus 90 fat + 10 muscle? How about 100 fat + 0 muscle versus 100 muscle + 0 fat? 60/40 fat/muscle, or 40/60 fat/muscle? In each of these cases, having muscle /instead/ of fat is beneficial; having fat /in addition to an equal amount of muscle/ may be useful [although you have more mass being dragged around, as opposed to mass used to propel, so I think fat's pretty dubious on those grounds, as well].

[Cain]

Well, to make the comparison fair, I have to assume equality in a lot of areas. Skill, most prominently. And strength does play an important role in ground fighting, that's completely undeniable. In this case, leverage = skill; one has to understand how to apply leverage before it can be used effectively.

However, if we allow for variances, then while it's likely for someone with superior skill at applying leverage and more fat/less muscle to win a ground fight, the converse isn't true-- someone with increased muscle/strength but reduced mass and leverage skills is most likely to lose. A grappler with increased mass and skill can readily prevail over a stronger opponent.

If we examine mass alone, and allow for equality in all other areas, then the more massive combatant still has a definite edge. Regardless of the source of that mass, fat or muscle or bone, the added mass is a clear advantage-- once you land on your opponent, there's just that much more he has to try and move. Why do you think they have weight classes? Given equal skill, a weak but very fat grappler can still "sit" on his opponent, and make it nearly impossible to be removed.

So, we see that skill is the biggest deciding factor, with mass being a distant second. Strength comes in at about third. Balancing each of these factors gets very complex very quickly.

You're trying to say that the combatant with extra muscle will have an edge, which is true; but you're confusing muscle mass with strength. Extra muscle mass does not translate into extra strength, and especially not applied strength. I can punch harder than most bodybuilders can, and I can teach you to do the same in about ten minutes-- it's a simple parlor trick requiring loose and relaxed muscles. Many bodybuilders have very tight and tense muscles, which impedes their ability to deliver force.

I see your point; but you're confusing strength and mass. If someone has both added strength and mass, of course they're going to have a distinct advantage over someone with equal skill. But you can't really assign arbitrary values to each and expect a simple resolution.

[Crazy Elf]

Cain, you're still a fat fuck, okay? A quarter of you is pure chubmo, and that's not healthy, no matter how much you try and colour it differently. Heart disease for you, fatty. Your points on extra mass being useful in a fight is true in some respects, but still just about every fighter who's considered worthwhile in any arena other than Sumo (which is less about fighting than it is about pushing) has a body fat index of much less than 25%, you fat fuck.

This is because being fat is dumb.

What you need is a helping chunk of bulimia, or anorexia. That'd really help you out, I think, and then you'd see that it's a lot easier to move about, because the Japanese will no longer throw those explosive tipped harpoons at you. Wouldn't that be nice? All that it takes if for you to stop eating, you fat bastard. You could even have liposuction, and if you did, the fat that they harvest could give one billion supermodels collagen injections for ten years. You could contribute to society, all you need to do is harvest the fat!

If I was freezing to death on Hoth, I'd cut you open and hide my taun-taun, a small Ewok tribe and myself inside you to protect us from the cold. It's going to be in the new version of Empire Strikes Back.

[Crazy Elf]

I can punch harder than most bodybuilders can, and I can teach you to do the same in about ten minutes-- it's a simple parlor trick requiring loose and relaxed muscles. Many bodybuilders have very tight and tense muscles, which impedes their ability to deliver force

Oh here's the problem, you're retarded.

[Daki]

I'm a self-admitted headhunter

Oh, that just kills me. It really does.

[3278]

I see your point; but you're confusing strength and mass. If someone has both added strength and mass, of course they're going to have a distinct advantage over someone with equal skill. But you can't really assign arbitrary values to each and expect a simple resolution.

Uh-huh. But absolutely nothing you said in your post was a refutation of anything I'd said, or defense of anything you'd said. In no place did I confuse strength and mass, nor does any of this have to do with skill. We're talking about "fat vs. muscle," and your entire post does nothing but avoid that issue. But...thanks for playing...anyway.

[Cain]

Uh-huh. But absolutely nothing you said in your post was a refutation of anything I'd said, or defense of anything you'd said. In no place did I confuse strength and mass, nor does any of this have to do with skill.

Yes, you did. You said:

And given equal fat, added mass from muscle can make a much larger difference in a ground fight.

I presume that you're saying that added muscle mass = added strength, yes? So, you're absolutely right. Having greater mass and strength can make a huge difference in a ground fight. Which also has nothing to do with fat vs. muscle, Mr. Kettle.

The only "fair" comparison is to assume equal strength and skill, but added fat mass on the part of one combatant. Which can be a distinct advantage, given equal skill. Even if we allow for some variances, someone with a lot more mass but a lot less strength can, given equal skill, still dominate in a ground fight. That, however, isn't a simple equasion.

So, once muscle is maxed, clearly fat can be an advantage. Only to a point, mind you, but certainly the sumos who are around 25-30% body fat have an advantage over normal people. Excellent conditioning plus high body fat can still be healthy, and in some cases can be a huge advantage in certain physical endeavors.

BTW-- I took another impedance test the other day. I'm down to 22%

[Szechuan]

Yes but the whole point of this comparison is that it isn't a fair fight. You can say that between two equally strong, equally skilled people, fat mass can be an advantage; but muscle mass provides a much greater advantage.

[Mysticdragons007]

What I hate most about school's is the way that they over step theire bounderies. Making it mandatory to be weighed and then to be sent home a report. If you want to give me tips on how to eat better fine, but I don't need you to tell me how over or under weight I am. I have a doctor you know he does tell me what I should and shouldn't be eating. Let the teacher stick to teaching and the doctors stick to telling you about your health. Do you want to hear your doctor tell you do study more in math?

Besides, why does america think we have an obesity problem? If 75% percent of amercians are "over" weight wouldn't you say that we have a probolem with people being underweight? I think that weight issues have been shot to hell and back. Whatever happened to vuluptuos women being the best? How has america's veiw been warped so much to think that sticks are the more attractive person?

I would find it extremely offensive and depressing if my school were giving out weight reports. It's not the faculties place to know how much I wieght, just as it isn't my doctors place to know I'm failing math.

[Cain]

Yes but the whole point of this comparison is that it isn't a fair fight. You can say that between two equally strong, equally skilled people, fat mass can be an advantage; but muscle mass provides a much greater advantage.

All right, let's try it this way.

Muscle mass! = Strength, although we've been using them interchangeably. Let's say we have two combatants of equal strength and mass and skill, except one has more fat than the other. However, body fat percentage isn't a factor, especially since we've established that they have equal strength. I couldn't predict the outcome of such a fight, and I doubt that anyone here could as well.

Or think of this-- if we have two boxers of roughly equal strength and skill, and are in the same weight category, if one has a higher body fat percentage does that mean he's at a serious disadvantage? Clearly, no-- there are too many other factors to consider, such as reach, conditioning, etc.

[Conscience42]

What I hate most about school's is the way that they over step theire bounderies. Making it mandatory to be weighed and then to be sent home a report. If you want to give me tips on how to eat better fine, but I don't need you to tell me how over or under weight I am. I have a doctor you know he does tell me what I should and shouldn't be eating. Let the teacher stick to teaching and the doctors stick to telling you about your health. Do you want to hear your doctor tell you do study more in math?

Except this does have precedent. I don't know about when you went to scohol, but the school was involved in testing me for hearing loss, as well as vision problems, then made the recommendation to my parents about whether or not I should see a doctor. This wasn't limited to me, all students in the school were. I assume that since I passed the hearing portion of the test, and those results were also reported to my parents, that all test results, positive and negative were reported. This is an easy way to make sure that problems such as hearing loss and vision loss are found early, before it can become a problem at home or in school. I assume that if there was a weight report, the same criteria would apply (ie, all students are tested, all results are reported, plus a recommendation about what to do with the report data). Oddly enough, I seem to recall the school also testing classes for potential lice infections when one student was found to have them. So there is plenty of evidence that schools already take an interest in the health of the children they are teaching.

[3278]

Yeah, Szech, you got it. He's just not seeing it.

[FlameBlade]

<scarcasm>

I'm building muscle mass in my hand. fwap fwap fwap. So my hand will be stronger, and at greater advantage than other hand. fwap fwap

</scarcasm>

[3278]

Let's say we have two combatants of equal strength and mass and skill, except one has more fat than the other. However, body fat percentage isn't a factor, especially since we've established that they have equal strength. I couldn't predict the outcome of such a fight, and I doubt that anyone here could as well.

That's not what I'm talking about, though. [Although I would still bet on the "muscle" fighter, for what that's worth.] We're saying, if you took someone and duplicated him, atom for atom, and then added 20 pounds of muscle to one, and 20 pounds of fat to the other, that the muscle fighter would win. Do you disagree?

Or think of this-- if we have two boxers of roughly equal strength and skill, and are in the same weight category, if one has a higher body fat percentage does that mean he's at a serious disadvantage? Clearly, no-- there are too many other factors to consider, such as reach, conditioning, etc.

That's an issue of complexity, not of muscle vs. fat. That issue arises in any comparison of any two fighters, although my above "duplication" comparison avoids it as much as I think it's possible to.

Anyway, I would rather weigh 200 pounds and have 10 percent body fat than weigh 200 pounds and have 25 percent body fat. And I think, if I weighed 200 pounds and had 10 percent body fat, I'd kick the crap out of my 200 pound, 25 percent body fat clone. I don't understand how anyone could feel otherwise. [/Does/ anyone?]

[Eliahad]

Not me.

[Bishop]

I do kind of disagree with you, Mystic. I think it is a fairly good idea. If only we had a nice, /working/ scale to judge obesity and fat vs. muscle, with regards to overall health.

[Eliahad]

...and at greater advantage than other hand.

This is because Flame's right hand never knows what his left is doing.

[Cain]

That's not what I'm talking about, though. [Although I would still bet on the "muscle" fighter, for what that's worth.] We're saying, if you took someone and duplicated him, atom for atom, and then added 20 pounds of muscle to one, and 20 pounds of fat to the other, that the muscle fighter would win. Do you disagree?

Are we assuming that the 20 lbs of muscle comes with an equivalent increase in strength? Then yes, he's got the advantage, because he's now stronger. Strength is an important factor.

Are we assuming that it doesn't, as happens quite frequently? Then no, nothing's really changed, and no one has a clear cut advantage.

You're suggesting adding mass *and* strength again, which confuses the issue. And determining the outcome of a fight is never a simple matter.

[Szechuan]

That's not what I'm talking about, though. [Although I would still bet on the "muscle" fighter, for what that's worth.] We're saying, if you took someone and duplicated him, atom for atom, and then added 20 pounds of muscle to one, and 20 pounds of fat to the other, that the muscle fighter would win. Do you disagree?

Are we assuming that the 20 lbs of muscle comes with an equivalent increase in strength? Then yes, he's got the advantage, because he's now stronger. Strength is an important factor.

Are we assuming that it doesn't, as happens quite frequently? Then no, nothing's really changed, and no one has a clear cut advantage.

You're suggesting adding mass *and* strength again, which confuses the issue. And determining the outcome of a fight is never a simple matter.

20 lbs of muscle is going to help that person move more than 20 lbs of fat is. Period.

[3278]

Are we assuming that the 20 lbs of muscle comes with an equivalent increase in strength? Then yes, he's got the advantage, because he's now stronger. Strength is an important factor.

20 pounds of muscle will always increase strength more than 20 pounds of fat, Cain.

Are we assuming that it doesn't, as happens quite frequently?

How is that possible? How does someone increase muscle mass without increasing strength? Simply cutting and pasting more muscle in - if we could do that - would give you more strength. Even if the mass isn't toned, it increases strength. The only possible way an increase in muscle [without decreasing the former muscle tone] could not result in a net increase in strength is if the new muscle mass were so weak as to not be able to overcome the additional resistance of the new mass.

Now, if you're saying that two guys who both have 80 pounds of muscle aren't necessarily the same strength, then yes, that's true. Muscle mass doesn't automatically mean strength, if it isn't properly toned and used; however, all else remaining equal, any increase in mass will increase strength.

Even if muscle gave no benefit, but were instead completely neutral to the contribution of strength, it would not be inferior to fat, since fat gives no strength bonus either! If they're equal in their contibution to strength - and they're not - then we're back to which is a better absorber of damage, fat or muscle [where we started; I've no idea how you backpedaled this far], in which case my vote is still for muscle, all other things being equal.

Yes, there is a point at which you can have too little fat, and impacts hurt worse than if you had more. There is a similar point with muscle. Too much of one, too little of the other, and there will be a resulting increase in injury. Between those lines, though, muscle is better for you in so many ways than fat is. I think beyond about 10 percent* body fat - a healthy amount for impact damage as well as fitness - having muscle is better than having fat.

*Depending on age, build, height, gender, and so on. But 22 percent, by the way, is <i>right out.[/i]

[Daki]

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Cain, you cannot add muscle without gaining some level of strength. It is NOT possible to gain muscle without gaining strength. Yes, you can slam lift and gain enough bulk to press a large amount of weight without endurance strength, but you are still stronger. The only mass you can add with NO increase in strength is fat.

[Cain]

How is that possible? How does someone increase muscle mass without increasing strength? Simply cutting and pasting more muscle in - if we could do that - would give you more strength. Even if the mass isn't toned, it increases strength. The only possible way an increase in muscle [without decreasing the former muscle tone] could not result in a net increase in strength is if the new muscle mass were so weak as to not be able to overcome the additional resistance of the new mass.

It also depends on location and type of muscle fiber. For example, if I added 10 lbs of muscle to your legs, it wouldn't help you much in an arm-wrestling contest. If I added mostly fast-glycolytic fibers, you could move faster, but not necessarily move more weight. (The fast fibers can exhaust their supply of glycogen in under a second.) Because of the way skeletal muscle works-- it's an all-or-nothing contraction-- the only way to add more force is to recruit additional fibers. Once the fast fibers exhaust themselves, you can't increase your force unless slow fibers start to act. So, simply increasing the number of fast cells won't help your overall strength.

Also, muscle fibers are similar to nerves, in that you don't actually add more cells. You're just increasing the size of the fibers. If that size increase is due to water retention, you won't gain any strength even though your muscles have grown. Only if that size increase is a result of adding more filaments will you actually add strength.

Yes, there is a point at which you can have too little fat, and impacts hurt worse than if you had more. There is a similar point with muscle. Too much of one, too little of the other, and there will be a resulting increase in injury. Between those lines, though, muscle is better for you in so many ways than fat is. I think beyond about 10 percent* body fat - a healthy amount for impact damage as well as fitness - having muscle is better than having fat.

10% is the bottom healthy range for males. You qualified gender, which is a good thing; 22% for a female is spot-on. But I use your terminology, 10% is borderline underfat and unhealthy. Suggesting that 10% is a good standard for all males, or even most, is not a smart idea. Which is part of the problem-- many people have very unreasonable expectations about health, nutrition, and fitness. If your cardio fitness is good, you could have theoretically have any percentage of body fat, with minimal ill effect. (It's not *likely*, but it's theoretically possible.)

Look, more often than not, fat is a result of a lack of fitness, and not the other way around. You're unfit, you don't excercise, so you start gaining fat. You don't magically gain fat, then have your body crap out on you.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Cain, you cannot add muscle without gaining some level of strength. It is NOT possible to gain muscle without gaining strength. Yes, you can slam lift and gain enough bulk to press a large amount of weight without endurance strength, but you are still stronger. The only mass you can add with NO increase in strength is fat.

Weren't you the one talking about water retention in muscles? Wait a tick....

Most bodybuilders also carry more muscle mass than their body can naturally support. Add to that, bodybuilders do a very specific routine designed to build bulk over strength. What they end up with are massive muscle mass that isn't strong and has the same consistency that you would find in fat.

[Mysticdragons007]

Except this does have precedent. I don't know about when you went to scohol, but the school was involved in testing me for hearing loss, as well as vision problems, then made the recommendation to my parents about whether or not I should see a doctor. This wasn't limited to me, all students in the school were. I assume that since I passed the hearing portion of the test, and those results were also reported to my parents, that all test results, positive and negative were reported. This is an easy way to make sure that problems such as hearing loss and vision loss are found early, before it can become a problem at home or in school.

I just graduated from highschool and I don't think I ever had any of these tests done by my school. Besides how does being over weight affect your school work? And speaking of over weight, how much isn too much? I'm 5'7" and weight 190lbs. According to my doctor I am about 40lbs over-weight. Some television shows that have done exerpts on obesity interviewed people my weight and called them obese. I don't think I'm obese and I don't think I look obese and I think that these weight reports will just cause more problems. It's bad enough when your doctor says you need to lose weight and when your momr or dad say it...I don't need the school to be telling me as well.[/i]

[Serious Paul]

Well MD7 (Sorry I'm not typing Mystic Dragon 007 too often.) keep in mind that medical obesity and social obesity (the appearence of being "fat") are likely two seperate standards.

For instance Anna Nichole Smith. She appeared in the latest issue of Maxim. She's likely to obese by medical standards. I'd venture that I am not the only person to find her socially attractive. (Well at least physically-if I could muzzle her I'd perform a variety of legal, quasilegal, and blatantly illegal sex acts on her!)

I'd venture, and keep in mind I'm just some guy and not a doctor, that a lot of things are like that. For instance is Madonna healthy? She looks healthy, she acts healthy, but there's nothing saying her cholesterol level isn't sky high, or maybe the drugs have taken their toll. (This is all just hypothetical.)

[Szechuan]

Most bodybuilders also carry more muscle mass than their body can naturally support. Add to that, bodybuilders do a very specific routine designed to build bulk over strength. What they end up with are massive muscle mass that isn't strong and has the same consistency that you would find in fat.

It can still exert force. That's why it is muscle.

[Daki]

Cain, stop willfully being stupid.

I said that bodybuilders will do a specific type of workout designed to build muscle mass. They are STILL going to gain strength because of that workout but it is not the same level of strength as someone who is toning their muscles. It's called endurance strength. Bodybuilders will have short impact strength for lifting but it cannot be sustained for any long period of time. You don't gain mass without some increase in strength.

10% is the bottom healthy range for males.

Wrong. WRONG. WRONG!!! Where the hell are you pulling this number from? 10% is NOT the bottom healthy range for males. The typical bottom number accepted for males is 5%. That comes from EVERY certified training course in the United States. Anything from 5-10% is considered "Atheltic to Good Health". Hell, _I_ have been at 5% body fat before in my life and was in perfect health. It is more <b>difficult</b> to maintain a level of 5% without a regular exercise regimine, but it is NOT unhealthy.



Cain, one of two things is possible here:

1. You really are talking out of your ass about something which you do NOT understand completely.

OR (and most likely)

2. You are willfully doing this just to continue an argument despite knowing you are wrong (and you ARE wrong).

[3278]

It also depends on location and type of muscle fiber.

No, any muscle in any location is stronger than an equivalent mass of fat in that location or any other.

If that size increase is due to water retention, you won't gain any strength even though your muscles have grown.

That's wrong.

10% is the bottom healthy range for males.

That's just completely retarded. You should go to Europe and just look around sometime.

22% for a female is spot-on.

Unless she's "fit," which is to say, "athletic," in which case 12 to 16 percent may be fine, depending on the woman. Obviously, female body fat percentage is more highly variable within the range of "healthy" than males, since women have more, ahem, "decorative" fat.

[Cain]

I just graduated from highschool and I don't think I ever had any of these tests done by my school. Besides how does being over weight affect your school work? And speaking of over weight, how much isn too much? I'm 5'7" and weight 190lbs. According to my doctor I am about 40lbs over-weight. Some television shows that have done exerpts on obesity interviewed people my weight and called them obese. I don't think I'm obese and I don't think I look obese and I think that these weight reports will just cause more problems. It's bad enough when your doctor says you need to lose weight and when your momr or dad say it...I don't need the school to be telling me as well.

That's exactly the point. The problem with the BMI charts are that they're heavily misused and misunderstood, as is a lot of nutritional and health science. For example, 32's fairly bright on the topic of biology, yet he keeps getting this stuff completely wrong.

For example:

No, any muscle in any location is stronger than an equivalent mass of fat in that location or any other.

...which has nothing to do with your question. Namely: "How does someone increase muscle mass without increasing strength?" No bait-and-switch games for you!

That's wrong.

Okay, we'll make it simple for you. Please tell us how skeletal muscle fibers can increase their individual strength without adding more filaments. This is straightforward biology, no tricks. I *am* however, calling your expertise in biology into question.

Unless she's "fit," which is to say, "athletic," in which case 12 to 16 percent may be fine, depending on the woman. Obviously, female body fat percentage is more highly variable within the range of "healthy" than males, since women have more, ahem, "decorative" fat.

Leaving aside the, er, asthetic values, women still need more body fat than men. If a woman's body fat drops too low (and this amount can vary from woman to woman) she'll develop amenorrhea, which in turn leads to early osteoperosis. Heck, in lecture, it was mentioned that girls need about 17% body fat in order to enter puberty. Which again shows that tossing out a single number for all humans is not a good idea.

I said that bodybuilders will do a specific type of workout designed to build muscle mass. They are STILL going to gain strength because of that workout but it is not the same level of strength as someone who is toning their muscles.

So, in other words, they *dont* gain strength as they gain bulk. They gain strength from the toning that comes alongside the bulk gain.

Wrong. WRONG. WRONG!!! Where the hell are you pulling this number from?

Understanding Nutrition, ninth edition, p 253. Now, it does go on to say that male athletes can be healthy with less than 10%, and that 5% is low-end acceptable for certain male athletes, depending on their sport. It also goes on to say that certain individuals will need more than the "ideal" 20%, depending on circumstances.

The bottom line is, health depends more on fitness than fat percentage. Someone who's got a high fitness level and a high fat percentage (while unlikely) is going to have fewer problems than someone with a low-to-normal fat percentage, and low fitness. Any arguments here? I've noticed that you and 32 keep skipping around this point.

[crone]

Anyway, I would rather weigh 200 pounds and have 10 percent body fat than weigh 200 pounds and have 25 percent body fat. And I think, if I weighed 200 pounds and had 10 percent body fat, I'd kick the crap out of my 200 pound, 25 percent body fat clone. I don't understand how anyone could feel otherwise. [/Does/ anyone?]

Someone who's got a high fitness level and a high fat percentage (while unlikely) is going to have fewer problems than someone with a low-to-normal fat percentage, and low fitness. Any arguments here?

So these are the basic premises?

[Crazy Elf]

Okay, everyone stop listening to Cain. He's fat and stupid. End of story.

[Serious Paul]

Say did anyone here read that interview with Jay Cutler in Maxim?

He's an example of the people competeing and winning the big money contests in body building.

He generally refers to himself as a freak. This guy eats dry oatmeal so his body will be forced to use its moisture to absorb it and thereby trimming him up.

[3278]

Okay, everyone stop listening to Cain. He's fat and stupid. End of story.

You've got a deal. I've had enough spectacularly bad science for a while.

[Daki]

...which has nothing to do with your question. Namely: "How does someone increase muscle mass without increasing strength?" No bait-and-switch games for you!

Cain, you have no room to talk on this one.

Okay, we'll make it simple for you. Please tell us how skeletal muscle fibers can increase their individual strength without adding more filaments. This is straightforward biology, no tricks. I *am* however, calling your expertise in biology into question.

Secondary muscles? Typically using free-weights in toning routines. Drastically increases endurance strength.

So, in other words, they *dont* gain strength as they gain bulk. They gain strength from the toning that comes alongside the bulk gain.

The hell? Are you purposely not reading all the words? Let me say it again (with emphasis):

I said that bodybuilders will do a specific type of workout designed to build muscle mass. <b>They are STILL going to gain strength</b> because of that workout but it is not the same level of strength as someone who is toning their muscles.

Where, in that sentence, do I say they do NOT gain strength? I state quite clearly they do. In fact, in that same post I said quite clearly that it is IMPOSSIBLE to gain muscle mass with an increase in strength.

Understanding Nutrition, ninth edition, p 253. Now, it does go on to say that male athletes can be healthy with less than 10%, and that 5% is low-end acceptable for certain male athletes, depending on their sport. It also goes on to say that certain individuals will need more than the "ideal" 20%, depending on circumstances.

Thanks for just stating that you were, in fact, wrong. Also, I am familiar with the book since it's a nice summary on diet and nutrition. It is not a reference for exercise, body fat %, and fitness... nor is it meant to be.

The bottom line is, health depends more on fitness than fat percentage. Someone who's got a high fitness level and a high fat percentage (while unlikely) is going to have fewer problems than someone with a low-to-normal fat percentage, and low fitness. Any arguments here? I've noticed that you and 32 keep skipping around this point.

When the hell did I skip around this issue? Well, let me dispell that right now.

It's a loaded question because fitness and fat percentage are directly related to one another. Given the highly unlikely scenario of someone with a high body fat % who is in good shape, then yes, they would be in better health than someone who has low body fat and no exercise. However, the reason it is unlikely is because you can't really get in good physical health through exercise and keep a high body fat. The fat will impede you so much that you have to lose it to continue with an advancing exercise routine.

[Gunny]

I've noticed that you and 32 keep skipping around this point.

[Cain]

Secondary muscles? Typically using free-weights in toning routines. Drastically increases endurance strength.

You're still adding filaments. 32's made the truly erroneous claim that you can gain muscle strength without adding filaments to existing muscle cells. For someone who claims to know as much biology as he does, that's a remarkably stupid thing to say.

It's a loaded question because fitness and fat percentage are directly related to one another. Given the highly unlikely scenario of someone with a high body fat % who is in good shape, then yes, they would be in better health than someone who has low body fat and no exercise. However, the reason it is unlikely is because you can't really get in good physical health through exercise and keep a high body fat. The fat will impede you so much that you have to lose it to continue with an advancing exercise routine.

Well, you *can*, but it's a highly unnatural state to be in. Sumo's are the only real-world example I can think of, since they maintain both a high body fat *and* a high fitness level, although they have to go on a special diet to do so.

But to bring this back to the point-- I'm beginning to think that schools really shouldn't be trying to hand out information based on weight, especially if they're using the BMI. I do, however, think they need to come up with more fitness programs. I think we need to shift our focus away from weight, and focus more on fitness-- since we all agree that fitness is more important, and an increase in fitness tends to lead to a reduction in fat, anyway. I think you agree with this, Daki-- I can't see why 32 doesn't.

[3278]

You're still adding filaments. 32's made the truly erroneous claim that you can gain muscle strength without adding filaments to existing muscle cells.

Didn't.

I think we need to shift our focus away from weight, and focus more on fitness-- since we all agree that fitness is more important, and an increase in fitness tends to lead to a reduction in fat, anyway. I think you agree with this, Daki-- I can't see why 32 doesn't.

Didn't say that, either.

For someone who claims to know as much biology as he does, that's a remarkably stupid thing to say.

Can we stop this, right now? Where do you get the notion that I know a great deal about biology? I don't. I certainly never claimed to. A couple of weeks ago, you were crediting me with special expertise in chemistry, which is ironic since I have never taken a chemistry course, nor have I ever read anything about chemistry. I have, in fact, never studied it at all. I suppose I know some things about it, learned through other routes, but I consider biology and chemistry to be "wet physics," and they're simply not my areas of expertise, nor have I /ever/ claimed they are. I've studied /evolutionary/ biology extensively, and in many cases, this means knowing a lot about how animals work, or how some specific plant reproduces. That doesn't mean I have any claim to expertise in biology.

Oh, by the way, neither, I should mention, do you. I don't know where you get the notion that you know more about fitness than anyone here, simply because you're taking some nursing courses and thus have read a book on nutrition. Marius is a friend of mine, Senator, and you're no Marius.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear this up, so people wouldn't wander around thinking I was some sort of chemistry and biology prodigy, who knows everything about those things despite never talking about them or studying them. I can see where people might have gotten the impression of my expertise based on the absolutely nothing I've said on those subjects.

[Daki]

Well, you *can*, but it's a highly unnatural state to be in. Sumo's are the only real-world example I can think of, since they maintain both a high body fat *and* a high fitness level, although they have to go on a special diet to do so.

Cain... please... STOP using Sumo as an example that they are "fit and still have a high body fat %". Sumo have a life expectency of 40-50 years. They are plagued by cardiac conditions, diabetes, and have debilitating knee problems. They are NOT examples of high body fat % and fitness. The reason they HAVE these problems is because of the level of body fat they carry to compete.

[Conscience42]

I just graduated from highschool and I don't think I ever had any of these tests done by my school. Besides how does being over weight affect your school work? And speaking of over weight, how much isn too much? I'm 5'7" and weight 190lbs. According to my doctor I am about 40lbs over-weight. Some television shows that have done exerpts on obesity interviewed people my weight and called them obese. I don't think I'm obese and I don't think I look obese and I think that these weight reports will just cause more problems. It's bad enough when your doctor says you need to lose weight and when your momr or dad say it...I don't need the school to be telling me as well.[/i]

Not even in Elementary school? This link shows how its done, and at the bottom, explains that many schools do the testing, and what ages the tests should be done. As for how much is too much? Well, if your doctor is saying it is too much, I would think that to be a big clue. Of course, as we've read in this thread, your physiology could be one that means the extra 40 pounds isn't unhealthy. But I would think that if your doctor says you are, you parents say you are, maybe some people DO need the school to say it also, before they get it.[/url]

[3278]

You're still adding filaments. 32's made the truly erroneous claim that you can gain muscle strength without adding filaments to existing muscle cells.

Didn't.

Which isn't to say I don't believe that's true. You can gain muscle strength by adding water to existing muscle, for instance, which inflates the cells and helps them do more work. This is why, for instance, hydration is so important during work, and why creatine is indespensible.

Adding more mass also increases strength. 5 pounds of muscle will be capable of less work than 10 pounds of muscle, if both sets of muscle are the same quality otherwise.

[Marius]

Which isn't to say I don't believe that's true. You can gain muscle strength by adding water to existing muscle, for instance, which inflates the cells and helps them do more work. This is why, for instance, hydration is so important during work, and why creatine is indespensible.

Nah, as far as I know you can't. Creatine works in other ways. I don't know anything about it increasing hydration to tissues for better performance.

But then, adding water to muscle tissue is not what anyone would rightly call "adding muscle mass."

[3278]

<a href="http://www.theministryoffitness.com/mof ... .htm">This page</a> explains the concept as it was originally explained to me [more or less]; I can't speak to the possible correctness of that information, but at least I didn't just invent the notion in my head. For what it's worth, this was also why I was told not to be taking in so much caffeine while using creatine, since it would effectively be a wash; without the increased hydration inflating the muscle fibers - like the difference in a half-full or a full balloon - you're left with only its chemical benefits on ATP and that sort of thing. Then again, creatine seems to be about the most misunderstood supplements I've encountered; I could very well be incorrect.

Yeah, either way, definitely not "adding muscle mass."

[Cain]

Even within that page, the information makes it clear that it's a buildup of actin and myosin that increase strength. Supposedly, the chain is increased creatine ---> increased hydration ---> increased amino acid permeability ---> increased protien development ---> increased myosin and actin filaments. I'm not sure what it means by an "increase in hydration", but it appears to mean a decrease in osmolarity, or an increase in the water concentration. How that affects amino acid permeability is beyond me, however; amino acids tend to require active transport mechanisms, which aren't affected by the gradient.

At any event, simply balloning your muscle fibers with water won't do anything to increase your strength. If anything, it'll impede it, as the ions now have more distance to cover. You need more actin and myosin filaments to have any increase in strength.

[Marius]

I'm not sure what it means by an "increase in hydration", but it appears to mean a decrease in osmolarity, or an increase in the water concentration. How that affects amino acid permeability is beyond me, however; amino acids tend to require active transport mechanisms, which aren't affected by the gradient.

It's actually an increase in osmolarity. Creatine increases intracellular osmolarity. Increased intracellular osmolarity increases intracellular water. I wouldn't swear by it, but I believe that calling it "increased permeability" was an error and what they meant was that the tissue will now have increased perfusion, which should be true. More serum would spend more time in that tissue exchanging nutrients.

[Cain]

It's actually an increase in osmolarity. Creatine increases intracellular osmolarity. Increased intracellular osmolarity increases intracellular water. I wouldn't swear by it, but I believe that calling it "increased permeability" was an error and what they meant was that the tissue will now have increased perfusion, which should be true. More serum would spend more time in that tissue exchanging nutrients.

Okay, that makes sense. Still, how can you increase the rate of amine entry? I was under the impression that amino acids didn't enter cells very quickly, and proteins never entered at all.

[Marius]

Many peptides will enter. Obviously large proteins won't.

Amino acids don't enter terribly quickly - not on the order of potassium or anything - but they can go at a decent rate. Facilitated transport is rate-limited, but still very effective. It is also rarely saturated. You don't have much in the way of free amino acids in your serum because they've mostly gone somewhere. The rate of entry is controllable, and that page is quite right about the utility of an insulin spike to promote amino acid uptake. The effect that greater perfusion of the tissue has is (essentially) to allow more time* for the amino acids to enter. The rate probably doesn't change wildly (excepting the effects of insulin), but plasma spends more time* in those tissues, allowing greater nutrient exchange.

* This is time in the pharmacological sense, which is to say that it is roughly interchangeable with volume.

[Cain]

Thank you, that makes a lot more sense. I was stuck thinking purely about Starling's equasion. (Which fits into what you're saying, but doesn't have a time factor involved.)

[Gunny]

Just an FYI, Creatine causes dehydration. Quite badly.