[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Just a thought here but who really cares how much LBM anyone has gained?
I could care less if the number is 30, 80 of 200.
I am after a look, a feel and a performance level.
The number is irrelevant.
Just like bodyfat percentages.[/quote]
I do agree with this. It is a pointless number and somehow I allow myself to get sucked in to arguing about it over and over again. I guess I just keep waiting for the lightbulb to go of and X all of the sudden be like “o yeah, now I get what you guys were talking about” if I explain it enough different ways but I think this is going to be one of those things that just is not going to be agreed upon. Just out of curiosity, I am making sense to more than just myself right?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Just a thought here but who really cares how much LBM anyone has gained?
I could care less if the number is 30, 80 of 200.
I am after a look, a feel and a performance level.
The number is irrelevant.
Just like bodyfat percentages.[/quote]
I do agree with this. It is a pointless number and somehow I allow myself to get sucked in to arguing about it over and over again. I guess I just keep waiting for the lightbulb to go of and X all of the sudden be like “o yeah, now I get what you guys were talking about” if I explain it enough different ways but I think this is going to be one of those things that just is not going to be agreed upon. Just out of curiosity, I am making sense to more than just myself right?[/quote]
I enjoyed it can you go over the equation again and how it works?
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
The average age for bone breadth to stop increasing is about age 25. By increasing the size of the bones you are increasing LBM. And everyone is different. People grow at different ages and start training at different times which skews the data that you are using for your total EARNED LBM gains. That is why the most accurate “Apples to Apples” comparison is either to base it off total % of Maximum LBM gained or in a less accurate estimate, excess in LBM over an untrained individual of similar body structure. You cant say you disproved Bricks numbers if you are using a different starting point than Bricks estimate is using. That’s like saying you beat Usain Bolt in the 100m but you started at the 80m mark.[/quote]
You don’t seem to understand this.
The best way is to calculate your own lean body mass gained. Looking at “averages” will not give you a more specific calculation. It will make it more variable.
It makes no scientific sense to look at someone else’s average if you have the body fat percentage from the same person at start and finish. The goal is to DECREASE variables, not add more.[/quote]
Also calculating a gain in LBM doesn’t work when comparing different bf levels within the same persona and also works even less the higher bf you are. More errors occur
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
The average age for bone breadth to stop increasing is about age 25. By increasing the size of the bones you are increasing LBM. And everyone is different. People grow at different ages and start training at different times which skews the data that you are using for your total EARNED LBM gains. That is why the most accurate “Apples to Apples” comparison is either to base it off total % of Maximum LBM gained or in a less accurate estimate, excess in LBM over an untrained individual of similar body structure. You cant say you disproved Bricks numbers if you are using a different starting point than Bricks estimate is using. That’s like saying you beat Usain Bolt in the 100m but you started at the 80m mark.[/quote]
You don’t seem to understand this.
The best way is to calculate your own lean body mass gained. Looking at “averages” will not give you a more specific calculation. It will make it more variable.
It makes no scientific sense to look at someone else’s average if you have the body fat percentage from the same person at start and finish. The goal is to DECREASE variables, not add more.[/quote]
Also calculating a gain in LBM doesn’t work when comparing different bf levels within the same persona and also works even less the higher bf you are. More errors occur [/quote]
This is false because being the same percentage does NOT mean you carry the same body fat.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
But by considering your own when compared to someone elses or Bricks 80lb estimate, you have far more variables than just basing it off an average. [/quote]
This is false. By basing it off an average, you just added in every variable of every person involved in whatever study came up with that average.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
But by considering your own when compared to someone elses or Bricks 80lb estimate, you have far more variables than just basing it off an average. [/quote]
This is false. By basin it off an average, you just added in every variable of every persin involved in whatever study came up with that average.
That is why you simply look at the individual.[/quote]
I did say that the average was less accurate than the % of Max LBM gained however, with an average of untrained fully mature males you at least have a measurable. You cannot define only LBM gained through training if that person started training before the age of full maturity. It is impossible and that is why picking a point that you started and just going with that is completely off the mark as it relates to the 80lb limit that was suggested.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
But by considering your own when compared to someone elses or Bricks 80lb estimate, you have far more variables than just basing it off an average. [/quote]
This is false. By basing it off an average, you just added in every variable of every person involved in whatever study came up with that average.
That is why you simply look at the individual.[/quote]
Dude I can’t stand listening to your jargon anymore. The fact that you talk a lot of **** that you can not back makes me believe that you do a lot of reading and not a lot of lifting. How Can you give advice to people without truly understanding what you are saying? The answer is you can’t … You can not tell someone something without knowing if it works or not. You have no experience lifting. You hardly know anything. Everything you do know you read in a book or stole from someone else. You have no factual eveidence that it works. You just take advice from credible sources and post them as your own…As an aspiring personal trainer, who has actually spent time working in a gym, watching and criticizing and experimenting. Stop posting. You don’t know what youre talking about. You know it too.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
The average age for bone breadth to stop increasing is about age 25. By increasing the size of the bones you are increasing LBM. And everyone is different. People grow at different ages and start training at different times which skews the data that you are using for your total EARNED LBM gains. That is why the most accurate “Apples to Apples” comparison is either to base it off total % of Maximum LBM gained or in a less accurate estimate, excess in LBM over an untrained individual of similar body structure. You cant say you disproved Bricks numbers if you are using a different starting point than Bricks estimate is using. That’s like saying you beat Usain Bolt in the 100m but you started at the 80m mark.[/quote]
You don’t seem to understand this.
The best way is to calculate your own lean body mass gained. Looking at “averages” will not give you a more specific calculation. It will make it more variable.
It makes no scientific sense to look at someone else’s average if you have the body fat percentage from the same person at start and finish. The goal is to DECREASE variables, not add more.[/quote]
Also calculating a gain in LBM doesn’t work when comparing different bf levels within the same persona and also works even less the higher bf you are. More errors occur [/quote]
This is false because being the same percentage does NOT mean you carry the same body fat.
Once again, you simply calculate lean body mass.[/quote]
Lol wow props to no comprehension. It’s not accurate to measure LBM when you are a scrawny 150 at 10% then measure at 250 at 20%. Those LBMs cannot be compared. Now if the guy at 250 20% cut to 10% then the gain in LBM can be compared. Get it? I never said the ppl would have the same LBM at the same bf. if they did. They did something wrong.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Just a thought here but who really cares how much LBM anyone has gained?
I could care less if the number is 30, 80 of 200.
I am after a look, a feel and a performance level.
The number is irrelevant.
Just like bodyfat percentages.[/quote]
I do agree with this. It is a pointless number and somehow I allow myself to get sucked in to arguing about it over and over again. I guess I just keep waiting for the lightbulb to go of and X all of the sudden be like “o yeah, now I get what you guys were talking about” if I explain it enough different ways but I think this is going to be one of those things that just is not going to be agreed upon. Just out of curiosity, I am making sense to more than just myself right?[/quote]
I enjoyed it can you go over the equation again and how it works?[/quote]
Do a google search for this “casey butt maximum lean body mass potential” That explains it better than I can.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
But by considering your own when compared to someone elses or Bricks 80lb estimate, you have far more variables than just basing it off an average. [/quote]
This is false. By basing it off an average, you just added in every variable of every person involved in whatever study came up with that average.
That is why you simply look at the individual.[/quote]
Dude I can’t stand listening to your jargon anymore. The fact that you talk a lot of **** that you can not back makes me believe that you do a lot of reading and not a lot of lifting. How Can you give advice to people without truly understanding what you are saying? The answer is you can’t … You can not tell someone something without knowing if it works or not. You have no experience lifting. You hardly know anything. Everything you do know you read in a book or stole from someone else. You have no factual eveidence that it works. You just take advice from credible sources and post them as your own…As an aspiring personal trainer, who has actually spent time working in a gym, watching and criticizing and experimenting. Stop posting. You don’t know what youre talking about. You know it too.[/quote]
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
But by considering your own when compared to someone elses or Bricks 80lb estimate, you have far more variables than just basing it off an average. [/quote]
This is false. By basing it off an average, you just added in every variable of every person involved in whatever study came up with that average.
That is why you simply look at the individual.[/quote]
Dude I can’t stand listening to your jargon anymore. The fact that you talk a lot of **** that you can not back makes me believe that you do a lot of reading and not a lot of lifting. How Can you give advice to people without truly understanding what you are saying? The answer is you can’t … You can not tell someone something without knowing if it works or not. You have no experience lifting. You hardly know anything. Everything you do know you read in a book or stole from someone else. You have no factual eveidence that it works. You just take advice from credible sources and post them as your own…As an aspiring personal trainer, who has actually spent time working in a gym, watching and criticizing and experimenting. Stop posting. You don’t know what youre talking about. You know it too.[/quote]
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
But by considering your own when compared to someone elses or Bricks 80lb estimate, you have far more variables than just basing it off an average. [/quote]
This is false. By basing it off an average, you just added in every variable of every person involved in whatever study came up with that average.
That is why you simply look at the individual.[/quote]
Dude I can’t stand listening to your jargon anymore. The fact that you talk a lot of **** that you can not back makes me believe that you do a lot of reading and not a lot of lifting. How Can you give advice to people without truly understanding what you are saying? The answer is you can’t … You can not tell someone something without knowing if it works or not. You have no experience lifting. You hardly know anything. Everything you do know you read in a book or stole from someone else. You have no factual eveidence that it works. You just take advice from credible sources and post them as your own…As an aspiring personal trainer, who has actually spent time working in a gym, watching and criticizing and experimenting. Stop posting. You don’t know what youre talking about. You know it too.[/quote]
??? That “jargon” is medical jargon. That is what they teach us in school. That is why I know what I am saying is right.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
But by considering your own when compared to someone elses or Bricks 80lb estimate, you have far more variables than just basing it off an average. [/quote]
This is false. By basin it off an average, you just added in every variable of every persin involved in whatever study came up with that average.
That is why you simply look at the individual.[/quote]
I did say that the average was less accurate than the % of Max LBM gained however, with an average of untrained fully mature males you at least have a measurable. You cannot define only LBM gained through training if that person started training before the age of full maturity. It is impossible and that is why picking a point that you started and just going with that is completely off the mark as it relates to the 80lb limit that was suggested.[/quote]
The way X calculates his LBM gains is either his bodyweigth at 255 or 250 which he says hes 15% BF from his bodyweigth at 150 in which he says he was 11% BF so it would be either 255*.85-150*.89 or 250*.85-150*.89 which would be either an 83 or 79 LBM gain according to those numbers.
Now the LBM gained doesn’t matter that much to me but I agree with your starting point for the average weight of a man at that height.
The real controversy is does he have ~ 215 pounds of LBM that he could “cut down” to if he ever reached his goal BF level which is leaner than he is now.
Lol wow props to no comprehension. It’s not accurate to measure LBM when you are a scrawny 150 at 10% then measure at 250 at 20%. Those LBMs cannot be compared. Now if the guy at 250 20% cut to 10% then the gain in LBM can be compared. Get it? I never said the ppl would have the same LBM at the same bf. if they did. They did something wrong.
[/quote]
Wrong. The guy at 250n will never have the same amount of fat even if he diets to 10%.
Do you understand this?
He will have MORE even if he is “leaner”.
Lol wow props to no comprehension. It’s not accurate to measure LBM when you are a scrawny 150 at 10% then measure at 250 at 20%. Those LBMs cannot be compared. Now if the guy at 250 20% cut to 10% then the gain in LBM can be compared. Get it? I never said the ppl would have the same LBM at the same bf. if they did. They did something wrong.
[/quote]
Wrong. The guy at 250n will never have the same amount of fat even if he diets to 10%.
Do you understand this?
He will have MORE even if he is “leaner”.[/quote]
Lol wow props to no comprehension. It’s not accurate to measure LBM when you are a scrawny 150 at 10% then measure at 250 at 20%. Those LBMs cannot be compared. Now if the guy at 250 20% cut to 10% then the gain in LBM can be compared. Get it? I never said the ppl would have the same LBM at the same bf. if they did. They did something wrong.
[/quote]
Wrong. The guy at 250n will never have the same amount of fat even if he diets to 10%.
Do you understand this?
He will have MORE even if he is “leaner”.[/quote]
It’s a %. That’s the point. Lol[/quote]
Uh…yeah, it is the point…that the bigger the guy, the more fat he carries even at smaller “percentages”…which is whny dieting down to 10 means nothing. You would still have MORE fat mass even if you dieted down to 8%.
Lol wow props to no comprehension. It’s not accurate to measure LBM when you are a scrawny 150 at 10% then measure at 250 at 20%. Those LBMs cannot be compared. Now if the guy at 250 20% cut to 10% then the gain in LBM can be compared. Get it? I never said the ppl would have the same LBM at the same bf. if they did. They did something wrong.
[/quote]
Wrong. The guy at 250n will never have the same amount of fat even if he diets to 10%.
Do you understand this?
He will have MORE even if he is “leaner”.[/quote]
It’s a %. That’s the point. Lol[/quote]
Uh…yeah, it is the point…that the bigger the guy, the more fat he carries even at smaller “percentages”…which is whny dieting down to 10 means nothing. You would still have MORE fat mass even if you dieted down to 8%.[/quote]
What does fat mass matter? We are talking LBM. Which is not fat mass.
Lol wow props to no comprehension. It’s not accurate to measure LBM when you are a scrawny 150 at 10% then measure at 250 at 20%. Those LBMs cannot be compared. Now if the guy at 250 20% cut to 10% then the gain in LBM can be compared. Get it? I never said the ppl would have the same LBM at the same bf. if they did. They did something wrong.
[/quote]
Wrong. The guy at 250n will never have the same amount of fat even if he diets to 10%.
Do you understand this?
He will have MORE even if he is “leaner”.[/quote]
It’s a %. That’s the point. Lol[/quote]
Uh…yeah, it is the point…that the bigger the guy, the more fat he carries even at smaller “percentages”…which is whny dieting down to 10 means nothing. You would still have MORE fat mass even if you dieted down to 8%.[/quote]
What does fat mass matter? We are talking LBM. Which is not fat mass. [/quote]
Dude, no offense, but much of what you write comes off as if you really don’t understand what is being written.
All it takes to know your lean body mass is taking a body fat percentage. You wouldn’t need to diet down to 10% to do that nor wou8ld doing so have anuy bearing on that number other than you possibly losing some lean body mass while dieting.
Lol wow props to no comprehension. It’s not accurate to measure LBM when you are a scrawny 150 at 10% then measure at 250 at 20%. Those LBMs cannot be compared. Now if the guy at 250 20% cut to 10% then the gain in LBM can be compared. Get it? I never said the ppl would have the same LBM at the same bf. if they did. They did something wrong.
[/quote]
Wrong. The guy at 250n will never have the same amount of fat even if he diets to 10%.
Do you understand this?
He will have MORE even if he is “leaner”.[/quote]
It’s a %. That’s the point. Lol[/quote]
Uh…yeah, it is the point…that the bigger the guy, the more fat he carries even at smaller “percentages”…which is whny dieting down to 10 means nothing. You would still have MORE fat mass even if you dieted down to 8%.[/quote]
What does fat mass matter? We are talking LBM. Which is not fat mass. [/quote]
Dude, no offense, but much of what you write comes off as if you really don’t understand what is being written.
.[/quote]
How could anybody possibly be offended by that sort of comment.
So much for me trying to start a thread applauding Marzouk and HT for trying to get lean. So X, what did you eat today? Curious to what your diet looks like these days.