[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And until they do (whoever “they” are - another mythical outlier I guess) it’s nothing more than speculation. [/quote]
It is pretty funny/ironic that the very first responder to this thread largely meets this critieria.
Detaza-something has gained around 70lbs LBM and has done so:
without this being a primary goal (he is a PL)
intentionally keeping his weight within set parameters due to a weight class and strength/ weight ratio
So don’t we have one of these mythical people right here in this thread?
Without getting into literally laughable semantics over dry weight/LBM must be exactly 80.1lbs or it didn’t happen territory -
He has gained about 70lbs of LBM , and is planning on gaining more.
What are people responses to this? Surely he has proved this himself by and large (70lbs not 80lbs yet).
Hopefully responses can remain civil just like this post is.
[/quote]
He was a distance runner at a 125 lbs his junior year in high school. Using someone who is underweight and before full maturation sort of skews the data don’t you think?
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And until they do (whoever “they” are - another mythical outlier I guess) it’s nothing more than speculation. [/quote]
It is pretty funny/ironic that the very first responder to this thread largely meets this critieria.
Detaza-something has gained around 70lbs LBM and has done so:
without this being a primary goal (he is a PL)
intentionally keeping his weight within set parameters due to a weight class and strength/ weight ratio
So don’t we have one of these mythical people right here in this thread?
Without getting into literally laughable semantics over dry weight/LBM must be exactly 80.1lbs or it didn’t happen territory -
He has gained about 70lbs of LBM , and is planning on gaining more.
What are people responses to this? Surely he has proved this himself by and large (70lbs not 80lbs yet).
Hopefully responses can remain civil just like this post is.
[/quote]
He was a distance runner at a 125 lbs his junior year in high school. Using someone who is underweight and before full maturation sort of skews the data don’t you think? [/quote]
But…why is it you are OK with the pool data for this limit starting before full maturation?
Will someone explain this to me?
Why is it OK for the “50 years of natural competitors” to NOT start after full maturity but anyone who says they came close to this limit HAS to be over the age of 21???>?
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
And until they do (whoever “they” are - another mythical outlier I guess) it’s nothing more than speculation. [/quote]
It is pretty funny/ironic that the very first responder to this thread largely meets this critieria.
Detaza-something has gained around 70lbs LBM and has done so:
without this being a primary goal (he is a PL)
intentionally keeping his weight within set parameters due to a weight class and strength/ weight ratio
So don’t we have one of these mythical people right here in this thread?
Without getting into literally laughable semantics over dry weight/LBM must be exactly 80.1lbs or it didn’t happen territory -
He has gained about 70lbs of LBM , and is planning on gaining more.
What are people responses to this? Surely he has proved this himself by and large (70lbs not 80lbs yet).
Hopefully responses can remain civil just like this post is.
[/quote]
He was a distance runner at a 125 lbs his junior year in high school. Using someone who is underweight and before full maturation sort of skews the data don’t you think? [/quote]
But…why is it you are OK with the pool data for this limit starting before full maturation?
Will someone explain this to me?
Why is it OK for the “50 years of natural competitors” to NOT start after full maturity but anyone who says they came close to this limit HAS to be over the age of 21???>?[/quote]
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I hope what you just wrote doesn’t make sense to even you.[/quote]
Dude - whatever - there’s no talking to you - everyone here knows that.[/quote]
I responded to you with respect and did NOT degrade you. I responded to each point you made…so what is with the attitude?
If you can’t support your stance, why do you resort to the insults?
[quote]
The bottom line is you can keep talking about how much you weigh, how you “did it” and you can do that until you’re blue in the face, but it is my opinion that until you are at a reasonably lean place - like a real, true 10%, then you really have no idea exactly what you will weigh dieted down - which is directly correlated to how much muscle you are really carrying.[/quote]
Uh, thank you for that point of view…but since most will never compete, then this limit serves no purpose at all.
I don’t need to diet down to a “true 10%” to look good…so if I can pass this limit and still look good by simply not caring about competition…then sign me up for NOT competing in NATURAL BODYBUILDING COMPS.
Case solved.
[quote]
And at that we can agree to disagree, because this will go no further on either side. It’s my opinion, I stated it, you stated yours - we don’t agree, so I’ll leave it at that. [/quote]
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
When you find natural lifters that are at/or very close to 3lbs per inch of height lean(all abs in), they are lifters that have ‘the look’ most of us are shooting for, regardless of the amount of LBM they may have added. [/quote]
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
He was a distance runner at a 125 lbs his junior year in high school. Using someone who is underweight and before full maturation sort of skews the data don’t you think? [/quote]
Just because someone is a distance runner does not mean they are underweight - they are just not fat.
The pic posted of 125lbs is of someone pretty skinny at around 10% BF - that does not equal “underweight”
I don’t know if he grew in height from that point, maybe he did.
Either way can you not see that this is now arguing semantics - someone who posts here has come close to this 80lbs BS and it is not even their primary goal?
So how the fuck can anyone say it is not possible? It just makes no sense.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
He was a distance runner at a 125 lbs his junior year in high school. Using someone who is underweight and before full maturation sort of skews the data don’t you think? [/quote]
Just because someone is a distance runner does not mean they are underweight - they are just not fat.
The pic posted of 125lbs is of someone pretty skinny at around 10% BF - that does not equal “underweight”
I don’t know if he grew in height from that point, maybe he did.
Either way can you not see that this is now arguing semantics - someone who posts here has come close to this 80lbs BS and it is not even their primary goal?
So how the fuck can anyone say it is not possible? It just makes no sense.
[/quote]
Bingo. Anything else just sounds like emotional arguing based on who is saying what.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
He was a distance runner at a 125 lbs his junior year in high school. Using someone who is underweight and before full maturation sort of skews the data don’t you think? [/quote]
Just because someone is a distance runner does not mean they are underweight - they are just not fat.
The pic posted of 125lbs is of someone pretty skinny at around 10% BF - that does not equal “underweight”
I don’t know if he grew in height from that point, maybe he did.
Either way can you not see that this is now arguing semantics - someone who posts here has come close to this 80lbs BS and it is not even their primary goal?
So how the fuck can anyone say it is not possible? It just makes no sense.
[/quote]
My 12 year old son weighs about that much. So yeah, I’m going to say it’s under weight.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
He was a distance runner at a 125 lbs his junior year in high school. Using someone who is underweight and before full maturation sort of skews the data don’t you think? [/quote]
Just because someone is a distance runner does not mean they are underweight - they are just not fat.
The pic posted of 125lbs is of someone pretty skinny at around 10% BF - that does not equal “underweight”
I don’t know if he grew in height from that point, maybe he did.
Either way can you not see that this is now arguing semantics - someone who posts here has come close to this 80lbs BS and it is not even their primary goal?
So how the fuck can anyone say it is not possible? It just makes no sense.
[/quote]
My 12 year old son weighs about that much. So yeah, I’m going to say it’s under weight.[/quote]
I think, being people who have gained a lot of mass before, we have an idea of how extreme a task of gaining 50lbs of lean mass, let alone 80lbs.
The question is, how does this limit resonate within the 16-18yr old’s mind. A little more than a decade ago, the general public thought that anyone with above average muscularity HAD to be on AAS. Most of the bigger, older guys I knew who wanted to be bigger than average started AAS early because of this belief.
Nowadays, with the internet showing many real life examples of people who have gotten big naturally, I’m seeing more big but unassisted guys in the gym.
Now i have absolutely no problem with choosing to use AAS. If you have an end goal of big and ripped in the shortest time possible in your younger years go ahead and do it. I’m just saying, in my opinion, that imposing limits, coupled with the prevailing social stigma of bodybuilding, serves more as a deterrant for young guys with the right genetics wanting to take up the sport.
Moreover, you can say that maybe no one HAS gained past 80lbs, but you can’t say no one CAN do that. The sample population we have is like around 1% of the population in a DEVELOPED country. Like CT, i’ve seen too many ridiculous feats, albeit in other areas of life, to discount that possibility.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
He was a distance runner at a 125 lbs his junior year in high school. Using someone who is underweight and before full maturation sort of skews the data don’t you think? [/quote]
Just because someone is a distance runner does not mean they are underweight - they are just not fat.
The pic posted of 125lbs is of someone pretty skinny at around 10% BF - that does not equal “underweight”
I don’t know if he grew in height from that point, maybe he did.
Either way can you not see that this is now arguing semantics - someone who posts here has come close to this 80lbs BS and it is not even their primary goal?
So how the fuck can anyone say it is not possible? It just makes no sense.
[/quote]
My 12 year old son weighs about that much. So yeah, I’m going to say it’s under weight.[/quote]
You are a clown.
Mike Tyson weighed 190lbs at 13.
So fucking what.
People are different. An example in this very fucking thread won’t shut you up which goes to show nothing will and you only want to argue.
I genuinely don’t give two fucks either way about this 80lbs crap the only reason I am posting is I am sick of all the “zomg X thinks he’s swole and he’s fat lolololol”
an example has been given and you just move the goalposts.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’ve put on probably 70 pounds of lean body mass since I started. But I was a supper skinny early teen.[/quote]
Which means unless you think no one has better genetics than you, that someone can do more.
That is why this limit makes no sense.
I KNOW people with way better genetics than me so if I did it, why tell people that no one else can?
Yeah, there may not be many…but again, that is why I posted that thread about “It chooses you”.
This comes down to genetics. You either have the ability or you don’t…but telling everyone that no one can just seems like some way of making sure no one ever does.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I’ve put on probably 70 pounds of lean body mass since I started. But I was a supper skinny early teen.[/quote]
Which means unless you think no one has better genetics than you, that someone can do more.
That is why this limit makes no sense.
I KNOW people with way better genetics than me so if I did it, why tell people that no one else can?
Yeah, there may not be many…but again, that is why I posted that thread about “It chooses you”.
This comes down to genetics. You either have the ability or you don’t…but telling everyone that no one can just seems like some way of making sure no one ever does.[/quote]
Or you could just say it like Thibs did…“I don’t believe that anything is impossible, but this would be extremely unlikely”.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
He was a distance runner at a 125 lbs his junior year in high school. Using someone who is underweight and before full maturation sort of skews the data don’t you think? [/quote]
Just because someone is a distance runner does not mean they are underweight - they are just not fat.
The pic posted of 125lbs is of someone pretty skinny at around 10% BF - that does not equal “underweight”
I don’t know if he grew in height from that point, maybe he did.
Either way can you not see that this is now arguing semantics - someone who posts here has come close to this 80lbs BS and it is not even their primary goal?
So how the fuck can anyone say it is not possible? It just makes no sense.
[/quote]
My 12 year old son weighs about that much. So yeah, I’m going to say it’s under weight.[/quote]
I weighed less than that at 12.[/quote]
I was 95lbs at 12. 5’11 -140lbs my senior yr in HS and by no means was I underweight or malnourished…I was just a skinny kid that was very active with sports and pussy. So I think 135-145lbs would be an ideal base to start from for a fully grown individual IMO.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
He was a distance runner at a 125 lbs his junior year in high school. Using someone who is underweight and before full maturation sort of skews the data don’t you think? [/quote]
Just because someone is a distance runner does not mean they are underweight - they are just not fat.
The pic posted of 125lbs is of someone pretty skinny at around 10% BF - that does not equal “underweight”
I don’t know if he grew in height from that point, maybe he did.
Either way can you not see that this is now arguing semantics - someone who posts here has come close to this 80lbs BS and it is not even their primary goal?
So how the fuck can anyone say it is not possible? It just makes no sense.
[/quote]
My 12 year old son weighs about that much. So yeah, I’m going to say it’s under weight.[/quote]
I weighed less than that at 12.[/quote]
I was 95lbs at 12. 5’11 -140lbs my senior yr in HS and by no means was I underweight or malnourished…I was just a skinny kid that was very active with sports and pussy. So I think 135-145lbs would be an ideal base to start from for a fully grown individual IMO.[/quote]
Exactly. I wasn’t that much smaller than the other kids and I weighed 85lbs as a 12 year old.
I have friends who are about that height who weigh 150 or less. They don’t look sick. They are skinny and lean and look normal otherwise.
A list of normal weights or a graph does not mean everyone below a certain weight is “malnourished”.