Author Topic: Strength Without Results  (Read 15596 times)

onlyme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19327
  • Don't Fuck With Bears
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2006, 09:46:29 PM »
dude, you do realise we are talking about an obviously bullshit laden crock of shite a three times BW claim here?
Wehave 3 guys at Gold's Gym who 3 times there bodyweight.  One of them broke the World Record at my meet on 2003 Doug Ortiz.  He weighed something like 141 and bench 430+.  Those numbers aren't exact but close.  Julian Lee at 198 benched 611 back in the late 80's or early 90's.  And the other guy I never met or know.  I was told 3 guys here and I know 2 of them.  Actually it might be Francis Silva.  I know he did 600 at around 200 or so.

Hendrix

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1346
  • Male Silverback Gorillas Do Not Take Drugs.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #26 on: September 27, 2006, 09:49:21 PM »
wait a minute, something is not right here
you said that he was 5'6 and 150lbs correct?
also he is doing 4 plates for reps?


doesn't seem right naturally
I am as perplexed as you on are this one, Hes a Mini Me Lee priest.I will try to educate this kid that he has enormous Powerlifting potential and try to get him to enter a powerlifting meet.I am a pretty good guage of weight no more than 160 soaking wet.
BOBB SAPP KILLS

Woten

  • Time Out
  • Getbig III
  • *
  • Posts: 910
  • jugs
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #27 on: September 27, 2006, 09:51:13 PM »
Wehave 3 guys at Gold's Gym who 3 times there bodyweight.  One of them broke the World Record at my meet on 2003 Doug Ortiz.  He weighed something like 141 and bench 430+.  Those numbers aren't exact but close.  Julian Lee at 198 benched 611 back in the late 80's or early 90's.  And the other guy I never met or know.  I was told 3 guys here and I know 2 of them.  Actually it might be Francis Silva.  I know he did 600 at around 200 or so.

Yes but Keith, your Golds Gym is hardly an average backstreet gym now is it?

I think you just made my point for me mate

:)
rons acunt

onlyme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19327
  • Don't Fuck With Bears
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #28 on: September 27, 2006, 10:00:14 PM »
Yes but Keith, your Golds Gym is hardly an average backstreet gym now is it?

I think you just made my point for me mate

:)
No it s defitely not your typical gym.  But either are the 24 Hour Fitness's here.  Allot of strong guys train at them here.  As I have said all along, I have maybe trained in 200+ gyms since 1973, and nowhere have I found more strong guys in oneplace than here in Hawaii. I can bet the Gold's here on Oahu or even Kona has more 400+ benchers than any other gym in country.  I bet we have at this small gym here at least 30 guys who can bench 400+.

jr

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 759
  • No homo of peace
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #29 on: September 28, 2006, 01:58:14 AM »
When i train Natural i am not too strong ,Im 280 at 6ft 38 inch waist and was using 80 pound dumbells for my shoulder routine, but what blows my mind is this guy no taller than 5,6 150 at most outlifts me in every exerecise and machine lift. ???
Is it Tendon strenght or some physiolgy attribute,I,m blown away by his strength and endurance, i asked him if he was on the juice and he just laughed "no"
I am perplexed.

A few things:

- bone lengths
- the position where the muscle attaches to the bones
- percentage of fast twitch muscle fibres in the muscle
- percentage of muscle fibres that can be 'switched on' by the brain/cns (no one can fire 100% of their muscle fibres)
- distance the weight has to travel (which is related to bone lengths)

There are systems in place in the muscle/tendons that prevent extreme contractions. This inbuilt mechanism is the bodies way of preventing tendon/muscle tears by inhibiting contraction. Some people through training or naturally have a very high threshold where the inhibition occurs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golgi_organ

ozman

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1422
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #30 on: September 28, 2006, 02:07:00 AM »
Lots of "small" guys are strong as hell. The guy in this photo can bench 525 without equipment. :o



What has been the highlight of your benching career?

    Dropping 601 on my sternum and fracturing my ribs for my first attempt, scratching my second and coming back to the platform to lock it out on my third attempt...then a quick trip to the emergency room.

WiseGuy

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2015
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #31 on: September 28, 2006, 02:09:28 AM »
When i train Natural i am not too strong ,Im 280 at 6ft 38 inch waist and was using 80 pound dumbells for my shoulder routine, but what blows my mind is this guy no taller than 5,6 150 at most outlifts me in every exerecise and machine lift. ???
Is it Tendon strenght or some physiolgy attribute,I,m blown away by his strength and endurance, i asked him if he was on the juice and he just laughed "no"
I am perplexed.

its called Anadrol-50  :-\

natural al

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6309
  • like it or don't, learn to live with it..whooooooo
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #32 on: September 28, 2006, 04:33:01 AM »
My question is related to moving a maximal load in the most efficient manner. In other words, how can one use physics to calculate the optimal usage of the body to excel in powerlifting?

I think your looking to much into this and I think that someone who know solely physics is not going to be able to answer your question.  I think you would have to get someone who has a great knowledge of both kinseology (I know I spelled it wrong) and physics to answer this and alot of the concepts of physics are not going to transfer.  Our good buddy friction and the avoidence of plays a great role in any mechanical arm feature, this would not-in most cases-be brought into play during a lifting movement.  You're getting into acceleration formulas, angles.....the equations get very, very complicated then you can add in muscluar compression and extention...man, it's hurting my head just thinking about it. 
nasser=piece of shit

Moen

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2863
  • Getbig!
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #33 on: September 28, 2006, 04:44:42 AM »
Leverage has a lot more to do with strength than size has

SteelePegasus

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7829
  • Life, death, in between is getbig.com
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #34 on: September 28, 2006, 05:36:54 AM »
Leverage has a lot more to do with strength than size has

is that what you tell your girlfriend?
Here comes the money shot

natural al

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6309
  • like it or don't, learn to live with it..whooooooo
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #35 on: September 28, 2006, 06:28:35 AM »
If the equations become complex, even better. Then I can learn some academics from it as well.

how far along are you mathwise?  I've good all the way to quadratic equations and i had a hard time with some of the formulas used in physics....when I say very complicated, I mean very, very, very complicated.  Honestly, I wouldn't even know where to start...you might want to do some searches on the net, there's got to be stuff out there.  There are sooooooooooooooooo many variables involved in advanced physics problems...you can take something as simple as sliding a piece of steel with rubber on the bottom of it across a granite table and your gonna be there all day long factoring in friction and such, now I know this isn't the same thing but you get the point.  Math and Physics get to the point where they are so geeky you have to be a total braniac to figure that stuff out.

do you have any physics classes under your belt??
nasser=piece of shit

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #36 on: September 28, 2006, 06:36:27 AM »
Here is something cool one of my friends wrote,He was a hulk comic book collector and made me watch those damn movies over and over.

Thought you guys might like it.  I will be showing some formulas on this thread as well shortly.  You will find that Natural Al is correct.  I will give you guys some cool things to maybe try.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's hardly a nerd who wouldn't like, at least once, to morph into a huge green guy and panic his tormentors. So, how is it that Hollywood can take this delicious daydream and puree it into pure broccoli juice? Let's start with a simple principle that Hollywood has failed to grasp. Bigger is not always better.

Consider the scene where the evil father genetically engineers a group of dogs into vicious behemoths and sets them on the scent of a victim to assassinate. Ironically, one of the dogs appears to be an American pit bull terrier (hence forth referred to as a pit bull). Even cat lovers will recognize this as one tough puppy. Why is this ironic? Making the dog larger would most likely make it a less effective assassin.

According to pit bull lore, they have been matched against virtually every other dog breed not to mention lions, tigers, and bears. More often than not the pit bull wins. Yes, this has a lot to do with the breed's strength and stamina but it's also because, at around 60 pounds, pit bulls are exactly the right size.

Dog breeders have produced huge fighting dogs such as the Japanese Tosa Inu which can reach 200 lbs but it typically doesn't make them better fighters than the pit bull. If a dog is scaled up, its strength will increase with the square of the scale up factor while its mass will increase with the cube of the scale up factor. For example double the size of the dog and its strength will increase by a factor of 4 but its weight will increase by a factor of 8. At some point the sheer mass of the dog will begin to limit its stamina as well as its ability to move quickly.

The best way to convert a pit bull into an assassin's tool would be to make it super smart rather than super large. A truly intelligent dog would not have to rely on the vagaries of following a scent. It could read maps, plan its attack for the best possible situation, sneak up, and quietly dispatch its victim with a quick bite to the throat. The dog already has all the jaw strength, agility, and jumping ability required to do so.

If anything, converting a pit bull into a snarling slobbering monster and sending it out with two other similar beasts would have made it a less effective assassin. How are a group of vicious dogs the size of cars going to detect and follow the scent of a person driving dozens of miles, let alone do so without alerting the community,  police, and national news media. Keep in mind that the targeted victim probably drove home, filled up with gas, and stopped at the supermarket before eventually ending up at a remote cabin in the woods.

As depicted in the movie, morphing also had serious problems. For one, it disobeyed the first law of thermodynamics. This is the most firmly established principle in all of physics and says that one cannot create mass out of nothing. No amount of mumbo jumbo about sea cucumbers and star fish can compensate for this shortcoming. If the Hulk is going to bulk up in a few seconds he's going to have to either acquire more mass, lower his density or some combination of the two. Unfortunately, gulping air is about the only choice for gaining mass and this will almost certainly lower density in the process.

By inhaling and standing in a more upright posture, a creature could appear perhaps 25% larger. A good snort of adrenalin or some other drug could conceivably increase short term strength by a factor of ten. An increase beyond this would probably cause injuries such as broken bones or torn tendons and ligaments. Combining these transformations with a color change along with growling and snarling would create a very imposing presence.

By contrast the movie has a scene in which the Hulk holds his love interest King-Kong-like in his fist. The Hulk would have to be at least ten times taller than his normal self to do so. If scaled up proportionally, the Hulk would be 1000 times more massive than his human form, but it gets worse. The comic book makers correctly gave the Hulk thicker legs and a more stout body. We say correctly because, like an elephant, he would need the thicker legs to support his increased mass. Unfortunately, increased stoutness means even more mass. The movie hulk would probably end up with at least 1500 times more mass than his human counterpart and a weight in excess of 100 tons ( 91,000 kg, assuming no density difference between hulk and human forms). Where is this mass supposed to come from?

The increase in strength with morphing is likewise ridiculous. At one point the Hulk overturns a 65 ton Abrams battle tank. This alone would require an increase in strength from human form of about a factor of 650. However, the Hulk then grabs the barrel of an Abrams tank, spins around and throws the entire tank several hundred meters. Compare this to the Olympic hammer throw which propels a 7. 257 kg ball a distance of around 80 meters. The tank is over 8000 times more massive and is thrown at least 10 times further. This suggests that the Hulk is at least 100,000 times stronger than his human form.

In order to spin and throw a tank, the Hulk would also have to be far more massive than the tank because he would have to create a huge centripetal force on the tank to make it travel in a circular path while being spun. Newton's third law tells us that forces always come in pairs which are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. While it's being spun, the tank will create a force acting on the Hulk which is just as large as the centripetal force acting on the tank. The force would immediately pull the Hulk off-balance unless he's significantly more massive than the tank.

An Olympic hammer thrower, for example, is around  15 times more massive than the hammer. Using this conservative figure (since the tank is hurled much further than the hammer), the Hulk would have to weigh at least 975 tons (8.86 thousand kg) in order to throw the tank. However, the Hulk's volume seemed, if anything, no larger than the tank he threw. Density = mass / volume and so the Hulk's density would have to be at least 15 times more dense than the tank's density. If only 10 % of the tank's volume were steel, the Hulk's density would be 1.5 times higher than solid steel!

Since the Hulk has less area under his feet than the tank's tracks, the pressure his feet exert on the ground would probably be at least 100 times higher than the tank. He would sink when walking on soft ground or sand. When he jumped in the air the pressure exerted on the ground would increase dramatically. Hence, the Hulk would be breaking pavement under his feet not just on the landing from an incredible leap but also on the take-off.

The Hulk's ability to make these huge leaps is itself absurd. Yes, increased size typically does imply increased strength but as mentioned earlier, weight increases faster than strength. If increasing size also increased jumping ability then elephants would be able to out-leap impalas. The only solution would be for the Hulk's muscle to become, pound for pound, several orders of magnitude stronger than human muscles. There's no biological creature on Earth which has muscle even close to this level of strength.

In one scene the Hulk leaps up and grabs hold of a fighter aircraft. The Aircraft immediately heads for the stratosphere and shakes off the Hulk by causing him to pass out from lack of oxygen. Keep in mind that a fully loaded jet fighter weighs only about 15 tons. Even if we ignore the drag and other aerodynamic effects of having the hulk attached, we still have to wonder how a 15 ton aircraft can lift a 975 ton Hulk.

Yes, the Hulk is based on a comic book and so we expect bad physics. However, the bad physics in this movie are excessive even by comic book standards. We didn't go to the movie to see a raging monster trash San Francisco. We went to see the fantasy of a likeable nerdy guy reluctantly turn into an 8 foot high science project and educate the mindless, heartless cool guys who had ignorantly messed with him. What we got was a cross between King Kong and Godzilla. Not only did the moviemakers give us wrong physics, they gave us the wrong movie.

Note: Yes, we have been influenced by the TV version of the Hulk. Since he is a comic book character who knows what his "real" size is. The Hulk Library lists it as 7 feet for the green Hulk.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #37 on: September 28, 2006, 06:39:31 AM »
The purpose of this experiment is to locate the center of mass of people, to determine whether the center of mass is different for males and females, and to calculate the ratio of a person's center of mass to his/her height.

Introduction
The center of mass is the balance point of an object's mass. If a pivot were placed at this point, the object would remain in place and be balanced. The center of mass of a system is not always at the geometric center of the system. For example, a car's center of mass is closer to the ground rather than in the geometric center of the car so that the car is better balanced. Another example of this is the technique of a high jumper. A high jumper bends his body in a certain way so that the center of mass does not clear the bar, but the body does.

When a system is balanced around its center of mass, it is said to be in a state of equilibrium. The center of mass can be referred to as a pivot point around which the system can revolve. The system revolves due to the rotational equivalents of force, known as torques, which rotate the system either clockwise or counterclockwise. Placing a pivot at the center of mass of a system results in that system being in equilibrium and having a net torque of zero. On each end of a long, rigid body, the torque on one end is equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the torque on the other end, resulting in a net torque of zero. The formula for torque is:

Στ = rF

Where r = radius and F = force. It is possible to locate the center of mass of a system by placing a pivot at the theoretical center of mass and using the formula for torque by setting the torques on either end of a long, rigid body equal to each other.


The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #38 on: September 28, 2006, 06:40:17 AM »
 order to determine the center of mass of a person, we used the formula for torque:

Στ = rF

The torques due to the weight on each end of the person were set equal to each other. The displayed weight on the scale was the force, and there are two different radii. The first radius is the distance to the center of mass from the person's feet, and the second radius is the length of the board minus the distance to the center of mass from the person's feet. The net torque of the system is zero and therefore the torques on the opposite sides of the boards must be equal:

w1x = w2(l-x),

where w1 is equal to the weight at the person's feet, x is equal to the distance from the person's feet to his/her center of mass, w2is equal to the weight at the head, and l is equal to the length of the beams. The resulting formula, when solved for the distance to the center of mass from the person's feet (radius one) is:

x = w2l/(w1 + w2)

After determining the location of each person's center of mass, the ratio of the center of mass to the height of each person was calculated using the formula:

x/h,

where x is the location of the person's center of mass and h is the person's height.


The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #39 on: September 28, 2006, 06:40:54 AM »
Conclusion
A person's center of mass is slightly below his/her belly button, which is nearly the geometric center of a person.
Males and females have different centers of mass- females' centers of mass are lower than those of males.
The average ratio of center of mass to height in females is approximately 0.543 and the average ratio of center of mass to height in males is approximately 0.560.
Sources of Error
Clothing contributed to the weight of the subjects and therefore resulted in a shift in each person's center of mass.
The subjects' heartbeats caused their center of mass to shift because one's center of mass changes as the heart dilates and constricts- pumping blood throughout the body.
Stephanie Gambino, Michael Mirochnik, Scott Schechter -- 2006


natural al

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6309
  • like it or don't, learn to live with it..whooooooo
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #40 on: September 28, 2006, 07:00:15 AM »
was he looking for center of mass or was he looking as to how you would use a physics equation to best set yourself up mechanically to lift the most?  I guess I didn't understand what he was looking for if it was center of gravity....
nasser=piece of shit

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #41 on: September 28, 2006, 07:09:54 AM »
was he looking for center of mass or was he looking as to how you would use a physics equation to best set yourself up mechanically to lift the most?  I guess I didn't understand what he was looking for if it was center of gravity....

Center Mass has a direct  correlation regarding a maximal lift. Finding the center mass in a certain position will enable one to lift maximally,while gravity is a constant, center mass will dictate a lower or higher center of gravity making a load movement more effecient.

The beauty of bodybuilding is that, none of this shit matters, like you said Natural AL. 

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #42 on: September 28, 2006, 07:12:33 AM »
was he looking for center of mass or was he looking as to how you would use a physics equation to best set yourself up mechanically to lift the most?  I guess I didn't understand what he was looking for if it was center of gravity....

Balance and shape of the load moved also has a lot to do with it.

Simple Example:  Ever try carrying a bulky, 50 lb box?

Then you carry a 50 lb Dumbell.....Sure both weigh the same, but the Box is always harder to carry.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #43 on: September 28, 2006, 07:15:46 AM »
By shape I am in effect referring to the mass of the object spread over the constant, which is gravity.

A 50 lb Dumbell and a 50 lb box have the same gravitational pull yet the center mass and centers of gravity are completely different, causing more force and work for lifting one,than the other.


The same is demonstrated in humans as a simple machine.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #44 on: September 28, 2006, 07:21:17 AM »
Tendon Density and Constriction will also dictate the amount of force involved to perform a set amount of work in a set distance.


Powerlifting is unfair because humans are not all effecient levers, nor do they have the same centers of gravity.

Density of bone is very important as well. 

Also consider this,  IF you increase your center mass, which you could do by wearing 300 T-Shirts, Your Squat numbers would be considerably higher.


natural al

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6309
  • like it or don't, learn to live with it..whooooooo
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #45 on: September 28, 2006, 07:23:00 AM »
Center Mass has a direct  correlation regarding a maximal lift. Finding the center mass in a certain position will enable one to lift maximally,while gravity is a constant, center mass will dictate a lower or higher center of gravity making a load movement more effecient.

The beauty of bodybuilding is that, none of this shit matters, like you said Natural AL. 

I was looking at the end result instead of addressing it step by step, I still think it would be a total bitch to figure something like this out strictly looking at it from a mathmatical perspective.  The equations would get outrageous, you'd have vectors all over the place, compression, extention, acceleration.......if you wanna do it go ahead but it's making my brain hurt.......
nasser=piece of shit

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #46 on: September 28, 2006, 07:32:10 AM »
Now this is why DC trainers are under the impression that they are making muscle gains.

They are getting fatter,changing their fulcrum points and centers of gravity with the added fat,which will allow them to lift more weight, and in turn seeing the gravitational pull on their increasing "mass from stored energy", they confuse it as a muscle gain.

It is not classified as a strength gain pe se` because when losing the fat, you lose mass which will then change the fulcrum points and center of gravity once again.


mrsirjojo

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Si vis pacem, Para bellum.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #47 on: September 28, 2006, 07:32:33 AM »
It's called the square-cube law, and it was first noticed by Galileo. To sum up...

If I doubled in size, my absolute strength would increase by a factor of 4 (not 2) but my volume would increase by a factor of 8. Thus, I would be 4 times stronger, but only half as strong as I was before, relative to my weight (it was one to one before but now it is four to eight). This is why an elephant can't carry another elephant on its back, but you could carry your girlfriend on your back, and an ant could carry 50 of his pals on his back.

Likewise, if you shrink something, it becomes weaker and weaker absolutely, but stronger and stronger relative to its own size. This is why ants and other insects and little powerlifters are so strong, for their size. It's also why you can drop a toy truck from 100 feet and nothing happens to it, but a real truck would get destroyed. It's also what limits the size of living things, from cells to bluewhales to dinosaurs.

In fact, a human the size of an ant would be about 3 times stronger than an ant, assuming it could survive at that size (it can't, too many physiological reasons to list, but tiny and large animals have extremely different biologies for a reason).

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #48 on: September 28, 2006, 07:37:11 AM »
It's called the square-cube law, and it was first noticed by Galileo. To sum up...

If I doubled in size, my absolute strength would increase by a factor of 4 (not 2) but my volume would increase by a factor of 8. Thus, I would be 4 times stronger, but only half as strong as I was before, relative to my weight (it was one to one before but now it is four to eight). This is why an elephant can't carry another elephant on its back, but you could carry your girlfriend on your back, and an ant could carry 50 of his pals on his back.

Likewise, if you shrink something, it becomes weaker and weaker absolutely, but stronger and stronger relative to its own size. This is why ants and other insects and little powerlifters are so strong, for their size. It's also why you can drop a toy truck from 100 feet and nothing happens to it, but a real truck would get destroyed. It's also what limits the size of living things, from cells to bluewhales to dinosaurs.

In fact, a human the size of an ant would be about 3 times stronger than an ant, assuming it could survive at that size (it can't, too many physiological reasons to list, but tiny and large animals have extremely different biologies for a reason).

Exactly why I am stronger now, than When I was eating Chicken Breast and Oats at 70 lbs overweight.

natural al

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6309
  • like it or don't, learn to live with it..whooooooo
Re: Strength Without Results
« Reply #49 on: September 28, 2006, 07:38:21 AM »
Now this is why DC trainers are under the impression that they are making muscle gains.

They are getting fatter,changing their fulcrum points and centers of gravity with the added fat,which will allow them to lift more weight, and in turn seeing the gravitational pull on their increasing "mass from stored energy", they confuse it as a muscle gain.

It is not classified as a strength gain pe se` because when losing the fat, you lose mass which will then change the fulcrum points and center of gravity once again.



why would you even start this again?  First if someone is training in a true DC manner and has any common sense they would realize if they were strictly gaining fat, it's not that hard to see.  Second you discount so many aspect of the system in your argurements it's not even funny.  If you would like to have an intellegent conversation as to why I don't believe you will be gaining strictly fat on this program I'll be glad to but there's more to it than you make it out to be and you know it.  DC recommends doing cardio for fat control, if your getting fat doing what your doing you can control it by a number of ways.  If your a sloth and don't bother to do what is recommended then you will add fat but I bet your gonna add a ton of muscle too.
nasser=piece of shit