Changing of the Guard

Training
401

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

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.[/quote]

Yes you do need to be at compareable bf. the wider the gap the more error and above 15 there is a ton of error in bf and a lot more water which will greatly throw off the measurements. If you read my first post where I stated these difference you might understand why you need to be at close bfs. But since you don’t care about a large amount of error sure go for it. The number don’t mean shit then.

402

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

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.[/quote]

Yes you do need to be at compareable bf. the wider the gap the more error and above 15 there is a ton of error in bf and a lot more water which will greatly throw off the measurements. If you read my first post where I stated these difference you might understand why you need to be at close bfs. But since you don’t care about a large amount of error sure go for it. The number don’t mean shit then. [/quote]

He wrote about the importance of similar stats on page 15. I’m not sure why he disagrees with you.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
You could say that the % of LBM you have gained compared to the maximum lean body mass equation could be the most accurate determinate of gains. [/quote]

…or you could just take your body fat percentage and see how much lean body mass you have…and compare that to what you had in the past…and there you go.

[/quote]
It is not as simple as that.
Do we need to re hash the water issue?
[/quote]

Your body is 70+% water. That is why you would simply try to be at similar stats as the first reading.[/quote]

403

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

I can’t believe you are for real with this. You are in a medical profession.

The more stastically significant your data is the less influence you see from external variables. This is the essence of statistics.

Just on this point alone, please consider that if what you say is true, then all statistics are meaningless. Just stop and think about that.

404

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

If you had a chance to read the article, after a little pondering I actually do think that the best comparison for the sake of comparisons would be the % of Maximum LBM gained. While not 100% accurate and without fault (nothing is)I think it would be the simplest measure with the least potential for error. The biggest potentially faulty variable would be the bf% because most manners for that test are fairly inaccurate.

405

[quote]ishinator wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

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.[/quote]

Yes you do need to be at compareable bf. the wider the gap the more error and above 15 there is a ton of error in bf and a lot more water which will greatly throw off the measurements. If you read my first post where I stated these difference you might understand why you need to be at close bfs. But since you don’t care about a large amount of error sure go for it. The number don’t mean shit then. [/quote]

He wrote about the importance of similar stats on page 15. I’m not sure why he disagrees with you.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
You could say that the % of LBM you have gained compared to the maximum lean body mass equation could be the most accurate determinate of gains. [/quote]

…or you could just take your body fat percentage and see how much lean body mass you have…and compare that to what you had in the past…and there you go.

[/quote]
It is not as simple as that.
Do we need to re hash the water issue?
[/quote]

Your body is 70+% water. That is why you would simply try to be at similar stats as the first reading.[/quote]

[/quote]

Because he loves to disagree.

406

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

Yes you do need to be at compareable bf. [/quote]

You don’t seem to follow. Then why not claim someone needs to reach the same AMOUNT of body fat?

You are making things up now. The heavier you get, the less your “percentage” will match up witjh what it was when you were lighter.

Dieting down to where you were previously will NOT bring you back to where you were in terms of body fat.

That has been explained about 100 times now.

407

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

I can’t believe you are for real with this. You are in a medical profession.

The more stastically significant your data is the less influence you see from external variables. This is the essence of statistics.

Just on this point alone, please consider that if what you say is true, then all statistics are meaningless. Just stop and think about that.

[/quote]

WTF? If you want to know how much lean body mass you gained, you take a body fat reading and calulcate it. If you are bringing national averages into it you tae it ouside of the individual.

This has nothing to do with what the “average” can do.

408

You guys may as well bash your heads into a wall.
That us basically what you are already doing.

409

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I understand that the body is 70% water professor but what I was getting, as has been used as an example several times is the gallon of water thing.
Example:
You are 250 pounds with 15% bodyfat correct?
Subtract the fat weight of roughly 38 pounds and you are left with a very respectable amount of 212 pounds LBM.
Go chug a gallon of water really quick.
Viola!
You now have 220 pounds of LBM.
See how water weight drastically skews LBM?[/quote]
Make sense?

410

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I understand that the body is 70% water professor but what I was getting, as has been used as an example several times is the gallon of water thing.
Example:
You are 250 pounds with 15% bodyfat correct?
Subtract the fat weight of roughly 38 pounds and you are left with a very respectable amount of 212 pounds LBM.
Go chug a gallon of water really quick.
Viola!
You now have 220 pounds of LBM.
See how water weight drastically skews LBM?[/quote]
Make sense?[/quote]

That is why you take it on an empty stomach to relieve those variables.

Your body weight and percentages is NOT constant. It changes all day everyday in small amounts.

411

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I understand that the body is 70% water professor but what I was getting, as has been used as an example several times is the gallon of water thing.
Example:
You are 250 pounds with 15% bodyfat correct?
Subtract the fat weight of roughly 38 pounds and you are left with a very respectable amount of 212 pounds LBM.
Go chug a gallon of water really quick.
Viola!
You now have 220 pounds of LBM.
See how water weight drastically skews LBM?[/quote]
Make sense?[/quote]

The guy in your example would still be roughly 15% bf though. If you add 8 lbs of LBM through water weight, you also add 8 lbs to total body weight. So it goes 212/250=.85=220/258. Not trying to bust your balls just pointing out something you might not have considered.

412

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

I can’t believe you are for real with this. You are in a medical profession.

The more stastically significant your data is the less influence you see from external variables. This is the essence of statistics.

Just on this point alone, please consider that if what you say is true, then all statistics are meaningless. Just stop and think about that.

[/quote]

WTF? If you want to know how much lean body mass you gained, you take a body fat reading and calulcate it. If you are bringing national averages into it you tae it ouside of the individual.

This has nothing to do with what the “average” can do.[/quote]

This would be true IF you could accurately measure your own LBM improvement from a completely untrained state. You can’t. Even if you made it all the way to adulthood without ever exercising and had the foresight to get a DEXA before you ever started exercising, your LBM improvement would be an inaccurate #. That’s what people are saying.

Now, you, like everyone I imagine, didn’t do the above. This would mean that your individual #s are inaccurate to the point of being completely unreliable. This is why posters are suggesting using a statistically significant average as a control, because an accurate national average is actually more reliable than your individual #s. If you disagree, I don’t really care.

But stating that averages are not reliable because of confounding variables is dumb. That is precisely what statistical analysis is all about.

413

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

This would be true IF you could accurately measure your own LBM improvement from a completely untrained state. You can’t. Even if you made it all the way to adulthood without ever exercising and had the foresight to get a DEXA before you ever started exercising, your LBM improvement would be an inaccurate #. That’s what people are saying.[/quote]

I had my bf tested at 18…and tested again recently. Tha is all I would need to determine this.

NO ONE can get a 100% accurate reading without AUTOPSY. A dexa scan is not 100% accurate.

414

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

I can’t believe you are for real with this. You are in a medical profession.

The more stastically significant your data is the less influence you see from external variables. This is the essence of statistics.

Just on this point alone, please consider that if what you say is true, then all statistics are meaningless. Just stop and think about that.

[/quote]

WTF? If you want to know how much lean body mass you gained, you take a body fat reading and calulcate it. If you are bringing national averages into it you tae it ouside of the individual.

This has nothing to do with what the “average” can do.[/quote]

This would be true IF you could accurately measure your own LBM improvement from a completely untrained state. You can’t. Even if you made it all the way to adulthood without ever exercising and had the foresight to get a DEXA before you ever started exercising, your LBM improvement would be an inaccurate #. That’s what people are saying.

Now, you, like everyone I imagine, didn’t do the above. This would mean that your individual #s are inaccurate to the point of being completely unreliable. This is why posters are suggesting using a statistically significant average as a control, because an accurate national average is actually more reliable than your individual #s. If you disagree, I don’t really care.

But stating that averages are not reliable because of confounding variables is dumb. That is precisely what statistical analysis is all about. [/quote]

He does disagree. I think I have discussed this with him personally three separate times. And it has been discussed before that more times than I even care to count. As SmashingWeights said I think we are trying to put our heads through a concrete wall.

415

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

This would be true IF you could accurately measure your own LBM improvement from a completely untrained state. You can’t. Even if you made it all the way to adulthood without ever exercising and had the foresight to get a DEXA before you ever started exercising, your LBM improvement would be an inaccurate #. That’s what people are saying.[/quote]

I had my bf tested at 18…and tested again recently. Tha is all I would need to determine this.

NO ONE can get a 100% accurate reading without AUTOPSY. A dexa scan is not 100% accurate.[/quote]

What you said is still not meeting the criteria of the only applicable candidate in his example because you started training before maturity.

416

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
I understand that the body is 70% water professor but what I was getting, as has been used as an example several times is the gallon of water thing.
Example:
You are 250 pounds with 15% bodyfat correct?
Subtract the fat weight of roughly 38 pounds and you are left with a very respectable amount of 212 pounds LBM.
Go chug a gallon of water really quick.
Viola!
You now have 220 pounds of LBM.
See how water weight drastically skews LBM?[/quote]
Make sense?[/quote]

The guy in your example would still be roughly 15% bf though. If you add 8 lbs of LBM through water weight, you also add 8 lbs to total body weight. So it goes 212/250=.85=220/258. Not trying to bust your balls just pointing out something you might not have considered.[/quote]

Oh I understand this.
I am just trying to show how water weight/bloat contributes to LBM “gained” but isn’t included in this 40-50 pounds scale gain thing.
Does this make sense?

417

Gotcha. You are referring to the absolute number and not the percentage. Correct?

418

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Gotcha. You are referring to the absolute number and not the percentage. Correct?[/quote]
Correct.
Not talking about percentages.
I’m talking about how water and bloat can make you exceed the 80 pounds of LBM thing without being close to 80 pounds of muscle.
Especially considering the amount of water retained per gram of carbohydrates and all that.
Vastly skews numbers.

419

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Mad Martigan wrote:

This would be true IF you could accurately measure your own LBM improvement from a completely untrained state. You can’t. Even if you made it all the way to adulthood without ever exercising and had the foresight to get a DEXA before you ever started exercising, your LBM improvement would be an inaccurate #. That’s what people are saying.[/quote]

I had my bf tested at 18…and tested again recently. Tha is all I would need to determine this.

NO ONE can get a 100% accurate reading without AUTOPSY. A dexa scan is not 100% accurate.[/quote]

What you said is still not meeting the criteria of the only applicable candidate in his example because you started training before maturity.[/quote]

Dusde, most lifters started before full maturity. I gave an age I had stopped growing and many do not see further growth from. Unlesss everyone in whatever study fouind this “limit” a;ll started after the age of full maturity, thisn doesn’t mean much.

420

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

He does disagree. I think I have discussed this with him personally three separate times. And it has been discussed before that more times than I even care to count. As SmashingWeights said I think we are trying to put our heads through a concrete wall.[/quote]

Honestly, that’s fine by me. It is difficult to prove our point with absolute certainty, and PX is definitely entitled to his opinion.

What bothers me is his casual dismissal of basic logic and science, particularly for a professional in the medical field. Means are not useless because of confounding variables. That is what statistical analysis is for.