Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:51 pm
Too liberal?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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 wrote:Already accounted for that. Given equal muscle, added mass from fat can make a huge difference in a ground fight.3278 wrote: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.
Oh here's the problem, you're retarded.Cain wrote: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
Cain wrote:I'm a self-admitted headhunter
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 wrote: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.
Yes, you did. You said: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.
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.And given equal fat, added mass from muscle can make a much larger difference in a ground fight.
All right, let's try it this way.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.
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.Mysticdragons007 wrote: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?
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?Cain wrote: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 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.Cain wrote: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.
This is because Flame's right hand never knows what his left is doing.FlameBlade wrote:...and at greater advantage than other hand.
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.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?
20 lbs of muscle is going to help that person move more than 20 lbs of fat is. Period.Cain wrote: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.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 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 pounds of muscle will always increase strength more than 20 pounds of fat, Cain.Cain wrote: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.
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.Cain wrote:Are we assuming that it doesn't, as happens quite frequently?
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.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.
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.)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.
Weren't you the one talking about water retention in muscles? Wait a tick....Daki wrote: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.
Daki wrote: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.
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]Conscience42 wrote: 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.
It can still exert force. That's why it is muscle.Cain wrote:Daki wrote: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.
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 wrote:10% is the bottom healthy range for males.
No, any muscle in any location is stronger than an equivalent mass of fat in that location or any other.Cain wrote:It also depends on location and type of muscle fiber.
That's wrong.Cain wrote:If that size increase is due to water retention, you won't gain any strength even though your muscles have grown.
That's just completely retarded. You should go to Europe and just look around sometime.Cain wrote:10% is the bottom healthy range for males.
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 wrote:22% for a female is spot-on.
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.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.
...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!No, any muscle in any location is stronger than an equivalent mass of fat in that location or any other.
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.That's wrong.
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.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.
So, in other words, they *dont* gain strength as they gain bulk. They gain strength from the toning that comes alongside the bulk gain.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.
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.Wrong. WRONG. WRONG!!! Where the hell are you pulling this number from?
3278 wrote: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?]
So these are the basic premises?Cain wrote: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?
You've got a deal. I've had enough spectacularly bad science for a while.Crazy Elf wrote:Okay, everyone stop listening to Cain. He's fat and stupid. End of story.
Cain, you have no room to talk on this one.Cain wrote:...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!
Secondary muscles? Typically using free-weights in toning routines. Drastically increases endurance strength.Cain wrote: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.
The hell? Are you purposely not reading all the words? Let me say it again (with emphasis):Cain wrote:So, in other words, they *dont* gain strength as they gain bulk. They gain strength from the toning that comes alongside the bulk gain.
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.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.
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.Cain wrote: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.
Cain wrote: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.
Kettle wrote:I've noticed that you and 32 keep skipping around this point.
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.Secondary muscles? Typically using free-weights in toning routines. Drastically increases endurance strength.
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.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.
Didn't.Cain wrote: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 say that, either.Cain wrote: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.
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.Cain wrote:For someone who claims to know as much biology as he does, that's a remarkably stupid thing to say.
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.Cain wrote: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.
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]Mysticdragons007 wrote:
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]
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.3278 wrote:Didn't.Cain wrote: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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.