[quote]PGA200X wrote:
I think you should create a gay and lesbian page just for this thread![/quote]
All in favor of a lesbian thread… ?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I don’t really understand what’s going on. But people surpass their supposed genetic potential that those calculators give all the time. Naturally.[/quote]
Well, it’s an averages thing and quite an inexact science, obviously.
Still, it predicts it with reasonable accuracy.
I think the two main downfalls towards people buying into calculations like that are:
-
People assume that if they have X, Y and Z" measurements, they will retain them when dropping to 8% bodyfat naturally (this is wildly unrealistic
-
People also chronically overmeasure stuff. And not necessarily knowingly. It’s the same reason why when somebody online says ‘yah dude, I squat 405 like nothing,’ it’s safe to assume they mean ‘quarter squat 405.’
[quote]vroom wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
I think you should create a gay and lesbian page just for this thread!
All in favor of a lesbian thread… ?[/quote]
Just as long as it doesnt turn into a dyke thread!
Hmmm so a person with 8 bf who measured their wrists and the calculator said they can be say 160 at 8 bf. Say that person eats a lot lifts hard and gains weight way above that say 200 you are telling me that after all that work and heavy lifting the bone density didnt improve and that same person is going to have similar wrist size at 200 lbs with 12 bf that he did when he measured(calculating the little fat that person gained in the wrist size?
Surprise ending!! I knew jimmylegs was too good to be true. This is the T-Nation equivalent of The Sixth Sense.
Now I know why people cover their faces when they post progress pics (at least the smart ones do, anyway). Seriously, this is the kind of shit that DOES end up on gay porn sites.
[quote]vroom wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
I think you should create a gay and lesbian page just for this thread!
All in favor of a lesbian thread… ?[/quote]
[quote]blowdpanis wrote:
I find gay humor funny (and I don’t think I’m quite alone in this). At the end of the day, I have sex with vaginas, so I’m pretty sure I check out okay.[/quote]
The gay guys I know didn’t really get the “humor”, and infact commented that if you want to try to turn straight men gay with pictures [while claiming to be straight yourself], you have some sexuality issues you need to come to terms with.
[quote]The Brain wrote:
blowdpanis wrote:
I find gay humor funny (and I don’t think I’m quite alone in this). At the end of the day, I have sex with vaginas, so I’m pretty sure I check out okay.
The gay guys I know didn’t really get the “humor”, and infact commented that if you want to try to turn straight men gay with pictures [while claiming to be straight yourself], you have some sexuality issues you need to come to terms with.[/quote]
Are you hitting on me?
[quote]blowdpanis wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I don’t really understand what’s going on. But people surpass their supposed genetic potential that those calculators give all the time. Naturally.
Well, it’s an averages thing and quite an inexact science, obviously.
Still, it predicts it with reasonable accuracy.
I think the two main downfalls towards people buying into calculations like that are:
-
People assume that if they have X, Y and Z" measurements, they will retain them when dropping to 8% bodyfat naturally (this is wildly unrealistic
-
People also chronically overmeasure stuff. And not necessarily knowingly. It’s the same reason why when somebody online says ‘yah dude, I squat 405 like nothing,’ it’s safe to assume they mean ‘quarter squat 405.’[/quote]
Good points.
Many people think they are in single digit body fat when they aren’t even close. I know I was surprised to see what a true 8% looked like on me.
And even though pros (with careful planning and lots of drugs) lose mass when leaning out, the typical bulker-for-life somehow thinks it doesn’t apply to them.
BOCTAFE
[quote]Typhoon wrote:
Hmmm so a person with 8 bf who measured their wrists and the calculator said they can be say 160 at 8 bf. Say that person eats a lot lifts hard and gains weight way above that say 200 you are telling me that after all that work and heavy lifting the bone density didnt improve and that same person is going to have similar wrist size at 200 lbs with 12 bf that he did when he measured(calculating the little fat that person gained in the wrist size? [/quote]
Your wrist size won’t change enough to be statistically relevant.
hmm thats intersting, I was under the impression that when people lift for long periods of time say a few years, and make signigicant progress the bone density increases significantly and so does the overall size to accomodate the added weight, and the extreme loads placed on the bones.
[quote]Typhoon wrote:
hmm thats intersting, I was under the impression that when people lift for long periods of time say a few years, and make signigicant progress the bone density increases significantly and so does the overall size to accomodate the added weight, and the extreme loads placed on the bones. [/quote]
No argument on the “weight bearing exercise = increased bone density.” But density does not = added girth. It’s more mineral laid down within the bone, not to the outside of the bone.
Even if the bones do grow in circumference, using the calculator, a +1 inch difference in wrist size will give you ten extra pounds.
[quote]blowdpanis wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I don’t really understand what’s going on. But people surpass their supposed genetic potential that those calculators give all the time. Naturally.
Well, it’s an averages thing and quite an inexact science, obviously.
Still, it predicts it with reasonable accuracy.
I think the two main downfalls towards people buying into calculations like that are:
- People assume that if they have X, Y and Z" measurements, they will retain them when dropping to 8% bodyfat naturally (this is wildly unrealistic
[/quote]
No, I really don’t think it does. Most people who think they have maxed out never learned to follow a proper diet for gaining mass. And that does not mean becoming obese. That’s not what I’m talking about at all. And I’m talking about people who have leaned out and have still retained much more size than those calculators would suggest at quite low bodyfat. I think they are quite inexact. Almost as inexact as the Tanita scale for bodyfat determinations.
Damn I guess Iam stuck with small wrists for the rest of my life.
On the other hand this reminds me, has anyone seen the pictures of before and after when ronnie gained tons of weight and they measured his skull? it got bigger a lot bigger. Ill try to find the link.
[quote]Typhoon wrote:
Damn I guess Iam stuck with small wrists for the rest of my life.
On the other hand this reminds me, has anyone seen the pictures of before and after when ronnie gained tons of weight and they measured his skull? it got bigger a lot bigger. Ill try to find the link.[/quote]
That’s due to Growth Hormone. Nothing natural will cause that kind of bone growth.
[quote]4est wrote:
LOL…Classic!
Jimmy isn’t so good at Photoshop. Can someone help Jimmy match skin tone?
[quote]jimmylegs wrote:
Jimmy isn’t so good at Photoshop. Can someone help Jimmy match skin tone?[/quote]
Bahahahah! Sorry, but that’s just too funny!
[quote]assbuster wrote:
Typhoon wrote:
Damn I guess Iam stuck with small wrists for the rest of my life.
On the other hand this reminds me, has anyone seen the pictures of before and after when ronnie gained tons of weight and they measured his skull? it got bigger a lot bigger. Ill try to find the link.
That’s due to Growth Hormone. Nothing natural will cause that kind of bone growth.[/quote]
Iam aware that it was due to growth. All this talk about wrist sizes just reminded me of the picture. The picture was trying to show what happened to ronnie as a result of using so much growth and insulin. It was a funny picture and I just wanted to share it.