Originally Posted by fUnc17

i gained strength while on a cut, go figure.

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

I look at it in terms of basic physics....force = mass x acceleration.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

You could definitely lose some strength while cutting by virtue of the fact that energy substrates will be in shorter supply. Also, losing a small amount of LBM is not uncommon.




I don't know what you mean here. Are you referring to mass as lean body mass? You can figure out the sum of forces (Yes, the sum of forces, not just a force; this is important) being exerted on an object by taking the moving object's mass and multiply it by the rate at which it is accelerating.

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

See, I know it's possible. But shit like that doesn't happen on accident.

Where you training for size or strength or both? I almost see it a mute point to train for size while on a cut.

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

I look at it in terms of basic physics....force = mass x acceleration.

Originally Posted by Spud

Force required to accelerate an object is = to the objects mass x the rate of acceleration. The same force is required to accelerate a fixed weight at a fixed speed, no matter how much you weigh. However, the force output of your muscles may lower as you lose weight.

In your example of Jerome Bettis, you're thinking of momentum, which is velocity x mass.

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

I was talking in overall mass (think jerome bettis running towards you)

Originally Posted by CowPimp

I'm confused. I don't understand what momentum has to do with losing strength on a cut?

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

yeah, don't listen to me....very bad example.

What are your thoughts on this.

Two guys with identical soma types height, weight..etc...

Both are doing squats.

One of them carries roughly 20 more pounds of pure fat. No additional muscle.

Could or Would the extra mass/weight help him move more weight? Maybe more leverage or....what?

Thoughts?

I know this is kinda meaningless to you guys, but I'm making an argument with a co worker. Just wondering.

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

yeah, don't listen to me....very bad example.

What are your thoughts on this.

Two guys with identical soma types height, weight..etc...

Both are doing squats.

One of them carries roughly 20 more pounds of pure fat. No additional muscle.

Could or Would the extra mass/weight help him move more weight? Maybe more leverage or....what?

Thoughts?

I know this is kinda meaningless to you guys, but I'm making an argument with a co worker. Just wondering.

Originally Posted by PWGriffin

yeah, don't listen to me....very bad example.

What are your thoughts on this.

Two guys with identical soma types height, weight..etc...

Both are doing squats.

One of them carries roughly 20 more pounds of pure fat. No additional muscle.

Could or Would the extra mass/weight help him move more weight? Maybe more leverage or....what?

Thoughts?

I know this is kinda meaningless to you guys, but I'm making an argument with a co worker. Just wondering.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

No, it would offer more resistance. Once he is moving, it would take more force to slow him down (Inertia), which is where you were going with it I think.

Think of the fat as an extra 20 pounds on his back, what's the difference? The only possible "advantage" is a decreased range of motion.

Go back to your equation, the sum of the forces = mass x acceleration:

Okay, the mass in this case is the mass of the person + the mass of the load on his back.

The acceleration is how quickly the velocity of the center of gravity is changing per unit of time.

The sum of the forces is the ground reaction force (Which is equal in magnitude to the amount of force being applied by the person, but opposite in direction; we're talking a vector quantity here) minus the force of gravity (Which is basically the weight of the person + the external load; note, this is NOT the same as mass).

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

For sports....I agree with you for the most part . For weight lifting you are 100% wrong. Fat gives you more than just stored energy it also gives you better leverage and that makes you stronger....but not pound for pound.....just stronger.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

That stored energy doesn't do much in a 4 second long lift. Even muscle glycogen doesn't contribute much to that lift.

How does it improve your leverage? Are you referring to being such a fatass that you don't have to move into the part of the movement where the joint angle is suboptimal for force production or what?

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

The stored energy was not my point. It is just common sense and experience that teaches water retention or fat will increase your lifts. If I was wrong then Power lifters and Olympic lifters would have 4-6% body fat on average since they have no need for extra fat or water.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Those who compete in lighter weight classes are generally very lean.

Those who compete in the super heavyweight weight classes aren't lean for a variety of reasons. First of all, not all of them are fatasses. Mamy of them are because all they do is stuff calories down their faces to gain as much muscle as possible. Cutting and bulking cycles, or lean steady bulking, would take longer for them to achieve the same increases in LBM. In the case of powerlifting, being fat also makes it so you don't have to move the bar as far in a bench press.

Of course, the premier strongman competitor in the heavyweight class is Marisuz, who is pretty damned lean. Jesse Marunde isn't a fatass either; he's a moderate body fat. The guy holding the world record for the snatch right now is Evgeny Chigishev, and he is in really good shape.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Like I said it is just common sense....put on 15lbs of fat and then tell me you gained 0 strength. Creatine is the best simple proof of what I am saying.

None of those guys are under 8% BF and most are over 11%.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Like I said it is just common sense....put on 15lbs of fat and then tell me you gained 0 strength. Creatine is the best simple proof of what I am saying.

None of those guys are under 8% BF and most are over 11%.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

By the way, what does creatine have to do with fat gain? Creatine makes you stronger because it helps increase the concentration of creatine phosphate in muscle tissue, which is used to regenrate ATP very rapidly. It is an integral part of the phosphagen energy system, the one most vital to high intensity lifting.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

Because if you gain 15 pounds of fat, some of that is going to be muscle too, assuming you are resistance training. It's not common sense that a tissue incapable of generating mechanical energy makes you stronger. I don't see how it just magically improves leverage outside of situations where your range of motion is actually decreased as a result. Please explain.

That's because under 8% body fat takes trickery to achieve for most. It's not even healthy to maintain such a low body fat for a lot of people. At a certain point hormone levels are going to drop, even if you can balance it out to some degree with exogenous sources.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Creatine causes water retention and that is why you get stronger .

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Well it seems you disagree with me and that is fine. Opinions are like assholes.......no need to debate the obvious any more IMO.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

That is not why you get stronger. Water retention has nothing to do with it. It increases the level of energy substrate in the energy system most used to lift heavy weights.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

That's fine. People can make their decisions based on what was said.

Originally Posted by ForemanRules

Nice spin but, Intelligent people will, make decisions based on personal experience and common sense. No scientific data was posted here.

Originally Posted by CowPimp

What spin? All I said was people can make their own decisions.