[quote]TheCB wrote:
you likely gained 10-15lbs of muscle (being very generous, that is a huge amount), an additional 40lbs of fat and about 20lbs of water. to think different is just ignorant.
to answer the OP, no you will not gain 80lbs of lean mass over the course of your training career as a natural.
dont worry about it just try your best.[/quote] Additional water weight IS LEAN MASS. Anthing that is not fat is lean mass.
If cparker started at 20% bf and ended at 20% bf he didn’t gain 40lbs of fat (assuming 20lbs gain in water & other tissue). That’s not how math works…
You’re telling me none of these scenarios are possible natural?
135 @ 20% = 27
210 @ 10% = 21
That’s 81 pounds of LBM.
135 @ 20% = 27
225 @ 10% = 23
That’s 95 pounds of LBM.
135 @ 20% = 27
200 @ 6% = 12
That’s 80 pounds of LBM.
These can’t be achieved natural?
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?
[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not.
Is Jay Cutler 300lbs @ 20% in the off season?
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]TheCB wrote:
you likely gained 10-15lbs of muscle (being very generous, that is a huge amount), an additional 40lbs of fat and about 20lbs of water. to think different is just ignorant.
to answer the OP, no you will not gain 80lbs of lean mass over the course of your training career as a natural.
dont worry about it just try your best.[/quote] Additional water weight IS LEAN MASS. Anthing that is not fat is lean mass.
[/quote]
ok fair enough if you want to include that.
LBM = muscle tissue + water(75-80%)
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not. [/quote]
yes you are suggesting these things you moron.
who in the fuck is 135lbs and 20% bf???
how tall is this person???
no they could not go from 135lbs 20% bf to 210lbs at 10%. your other examples are equally ignorant.
i REALLY dont want to get involved in a back and forth with you again, but 1. you are just such an idiot 2. you wont stop stalking my posts so it makes it difficult 
How about 135 @ 20% to 300 @ 35%? That’s still over 80 LBM ( 87)?
[quote]dt79 wrote:
LBM = muscle tissue + water(75-80%)
[/quote]
What about other tissue (ligaments, bones, etc…)?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
LBM = muscle tissue + water(75-80%)
[/quote]
What about other tissue (ligaments, bones, etc…)?[/quote]
I cannot imagine how anyone can accurately weigh them or even actual muscle tissue while the subject is still alive.
But the topic in question is whether one can gain 80lbs of LBM. I can pop a couple of dbols and gain 10lbs of LBM in a week due to water retention without even an increase in muscle tissue.
[quote]TheCB wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]TheCB wrote:
you likely gained 10-15lbs of muscle (being very generous, that is a huge amount), an additional 40lbs of fat and about 20lbs of water. to think different is just ignorant.
to answer the OP, no you will not gain 80lbs of lean mass over the course of your training career as a natural.
dont worry about it just try your best.[/quote] Additional water weight IS LEAN MASS. Anthing that is not fat is lean mass.
[/quote]
ok fair enough if you want to include that.[/quote]
Were you seriously under the impression that we’re talking about dry muscle tissue?
Who the fuck gains 80lbs of dry muscle? That’s more than 200lbs of LBM.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
LBM = muscle tissue + water(75-80%)
[/quote]
What about other tissue (ligaments, bones, etc…)?[/quote]
I cannot imagine how anyone can accurately weigh them or even actual muscle tissue while the subject is still alive.
But the topic in question is whether one can gain 80lbs of LBM. I can pop a couple of dbols and gain 10lbs of LBM in a week due to water retention without even an increase in muscle tissue.[/quote]
So basically, like I said on page 1, this conversation is pointless.
[quote]TheCB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not. [/quote]
yes you are suggesting these things you moron.
who in the fuck is 135lbs and 20% bf???
how tall is this person???
no they could not go from 135lbs 20% bf to 210lbs at 10%. your other examples are equally ignorant.
i REALLY dont want to get involved in a back and forth with you again, but 1. you are just such an idiot 2. you wont stop stalking my posts so it makes it difficult :([/quote]
You’ve gotta be one of the biggest cunts on the planet.
I wasn’t suggesting anything. I used this thing called a question mark. A question mark annotates a question.
Plenty of people are 135 @ 20%. None of the options are ignorant you’re just a closed minded little shit. No one is stalking your posts. I’ve direct posts at you in three threads. Get over yourself.
shrug You can make estimates based on the stats of others. Accuracy of the estimates isn’t perfect but it’s not terrible and generally gives you an idea of what’s a likely size you could reach. (which is nearly always bigger than you are now) Whether or not you find the estimates valuable is up to you.
[quote]blue9steel wrote:
shrug You can make estimates based on the stats of others. Accuracy of the estimates isn’t perfect but it’s not terrible and generally gives you an idea of what’s a likely size you could reach. (which is nearly always bigger than you are now) Whether or not you find the estimates valuable is up to you.[/quote]
All I’m saying is this magical number seems to be pretty silly in and of itself. This scenario seems plenty reasonable:
135 @ 20% = 27
225 @ 10% = 23
That’s 95 pounds of something other than fat. Call it LBM, LBM + other tissue, or whatever. It’s still over 80lbs of weight that is not fat.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]blue9steel wrote:
shrug You can make estimates based on the stats of others. Accuracy of the estimates isn’t perfect but it’s not terrible and generally gives you an idea of what’s a likely size you could reach. (which is nearly always bigger than you are now) Whether or not you find the estimates valuable is up to you.[/quote]
All I’m saying is this magical number seems to be pretty silly in and of itself. This scenario seems plenty reasonable:
135 @ 20% = 27
225 @ 10% = 23
That’s 95 pounds of something other than fat. Call it LBM, LBM + other tissue, or whatever. It’s still over 80lbs of weight that is not fat. [/quote]
Yes, it’s counted as LBM.
CT already explained this in detail in the American Sniper thread.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
As it was mentioned the goal was to look like Chris Kyle. I think the result is pretty darn good considering Cooper only had a few months to reach a level similar to what Kyle did in his lifetime 
The “claim” was that he added 37lbs of “lean mass”. Not muscle. Understand that water and glycogen are part of “lean mass” … lean mass is also called “fat-free mass” which includes every tissue in the body except fat. But since his bones and organs aren’t likely to have grown, we can narrow it down to muscle, water and glycogen. [/quote]
You can’t possibly build muscle tissue without a corresponding increase in intramuscular fluid.
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]blue9steel wrote:
shrug You can make estimates based on the stats of others. Accuracy of the estimates isn’t perfect but it’s not terrible and generally gives you an idea of what’s a likely size you could reach. (which is nearly always bigger than you are now) Whether or not you find the estimates valuable is up to you.[/quote]
All I’m saying is this magical number seems to be pretty silly in and of itself. This scenario seems plenty reasonable:
135 @ 20% = 27
225 @ 10% = 23
That’s 95 pounds of something other than fat. Call it LBM, LBM + other tissue, or whatever. It’s still over 80lbs of weight that is not fat. [/quote]
Yes, it’s counted as LBM.
CT already explained this in detail in the American Sniper thread.
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
As it was mentioned the goal was to look like Chris Kyle. I think the result is pretty darn good considering Cooper only had a few months to reach a level similar to what Kyle did in his lifetime
The “claim” was that he added 37lbs of “lean mass”. Not muscle. Understand that water and glycogen are part of “lean mass” … lean mass is also called “fat-free mass” which includes every tissue in the body except fat. But since his bones and organs aren’t likely to have grown, we can narrow it down to muscle, water and glycogen. [/quote][/quote]
I thought CT had written something along those lines, but I couldn’t remember which thread (probably for good reason…)