[quote]rds63799 wrote:
There was a guy in the supps & nutrition forum a while back who claimed he had gained 1lb of muscle or more a week for the last three months, with a decrease in bodyfat. That would mean 90lbs of muscle at least! In three months! Madness.
[/quote]
sorry Einstein but I think your abacus might be broken.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[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]
Right. 125 lbs at 5’8" to 5’10" would have a BMI of less than 20, indicating underweight.
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Feel free to post a natural who can be assumed to have gained 80 to 100 pounds as well. [/quote]
I like where this is going.
BRB getting my popcorn![/quote]
In your interview you said you started training around 18 years old at 125lbs 5’8 at what looks like 10-12% BF.
5 years later you are 215 at 17%. So “lean mass” from around 110lbs to around 178.5lbs.
A gain of around 68.5lbs.
You say your goal is 225 at 10-12%. Which would be a gain from around 110lbs to around 202.5lbs.
A gain of around 92.5lbs.
Yet you seem to always disagree with the premise that it is not possible to gain 80-100lbs LBM as an adult despite you already being nearly there and it being your goal to fit pretty much exactly within these parameters. Even including the fact you were running long distance when you started or that the 225 will no longer be as a natural (i am assuming) it all seems pretty close enough to fit the argument of 80lbs+ LBM gain.
I don’t understand.[/quote]
Well I didn’t want to say in my article I plan on using “super supps” in the future to reach 225lbs at that low bodyfat.
Last thing I want to do is have my family and friends read that.
Edit: Mega LOL at using me as a primary example. I thought I wasn’t enough a “winner” to be good for anything, but I digress.
This thread almost makes me want to diet down to bodybuilder stage weight, but there’s no chance that I’d be more than 170-175lbs AT BEST.
You do lose LBM when you diet down.
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Feel free to post a natural who can be assumed to have gained 80 to 100 pounds as well. [/quote]
I like where this is going.
BRB getting my popcorn![/quote]
In your interview you said you started training around 18 years old at 125lbs 5’8 at what looks like 10-12% BF.
5 years later you are 215 at 17%. So “lean mass” from around 110lbs to around 178.5lbs.
A gain of around 68.5lbs.
You say your goal is 225 at 10-12%. Which would be a gain from around 110lbs to around 202.5lbs.
A gain of around 92.5lbs.
Yet you seem to always disagree with the premise that it is not possible to gain 80-100lbs LBM as an adult despite you already being nearly there and it being your goal to fit pretty much exactly within these parameters. Even including the fact you were running long distance when you started or that the 225 will no longer be as a natural (i am assuming) it all seems pretty close enough to fit the argument of 80lbs+ LBM gain.
I don’t understand.[/quote]
Well I didn’t want to say in my article I plan on using “super supps” in the future to reach 225lbs at that low bodyfat.
Last thing I want to do is have my family and friends read that.[/quote]
obviously that is fine.
discounting that haven’t you still gained around 70lbs LBM as a natural?
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Feel free to post a natural who can be assumed to have gained 80 to 100 pounds as well. [/quote]
I like where this is going.
BRB getting my popcorn![/quote]
In your interview you said you started training around 18 years old at 125lbs 5’8 at what looks like 10-12% BF.
5 years later you are 215 at 17%. So “lean mass” from around 110lbs to around 178.5lbs.
A gain of around 68.5lbs.
You say your goal is 225 at 10-12%. Which would be a gain from around 110lbs to around 202.5lbs.
A gain of around 92.5lbs.
Yet you seem to always disagree with the premise that it is not possible to gain 80-100lbs LBM as an adult despite you already being nearly there and it being your goal to fit pretty much exactly within these parameters. Even including the fact you were running long distance when you started or that the 225 will no longer be as a natural (i am assuming) it all seems pretty close enough to fit the argument of 80lbs+ LBM gain.
I don’t understand.[/quote]
Well I didn’t want to say in my article I plan on using “super supps” in the future to reach 225lbs at that low bodyfat.
Last thing I want to do is have my family and friends read that.[/quote]
obviously that is fine.
discounting that haven’t you still gained around 70lbs LBM as a natural?[/quote]
I’d still say my results are skewed, because 125lbs was a bit of a stretch. I gained 15lbs back come lacrosse season, and played at 140lbs @ 5’7. I’d put the start of my weight-gaining journey there. I have notice that once I hit the 200lb at my shirt height, that there was a big drop off into diminishing returns of how much weight I could gain.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[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]
Right. 125 lbs at 5’8" to 5’10" would have a BMI of less than 20, indicating underweight.
[/quote]
Why use BMI as a measure though? IMO it’s useless even for untrained individuals.
I was about 135 at 19-20 so couldn’t I theoretically reach this 100lbs limit?
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Edit: Mega LOL at using me as a primary example. I thought I wasn’t enough a “winner” to be good for anything, but I digress.
This thread almost makes me want to diet down to bodybuilder stage weight, but there’s no chance that I’d be more than 170-175lbs AT BEST.
You do lose LBM when you diet down. [/quote]
I don’t know what you mean I have never said anything negative about you.
I also don’t understand the BB competition reference - no one has said anything about a competition nor that someone will not lose LBM if they embark on a contest diet.
The premise is: can someone gain around 80lbs of LBM (while not being a sumo wrestler, or starting aged 10, or starting at the point of starvation)
I have only used you as an example as you have recently put up stats and these seem to fit pretty closely without this being your primary goal (you want to stay in a certain weight class and maintain/ improve strength to weight).
It therefore seems to make sense to say that yes it is indeed possible against people saying it is literally impossible. That is all.
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
Edit: Mega LOL at using me as a primary example. I thought I wasn’t enough a “winner” to be good for anything, but I digress.
This thread almost makes me want to diet down to bodybuilder stage weight, but there’s no chance that I’d be more than 170-175lbs AT BEST.
You do lose LBM when you diet down. [/quote]
I don’t know what you mean I have never said anything negative about you.
I also don’t understand the BB competition reference - no one has said anything about a competition nor that someone will not lose LBM if they embark on a contest diet.
The premise is: can someone gain around 80lbs of LBM (while not being a sumo wrestler, or starting aged 10, or starting at the point of starvation)
I have only used you as an example as you have recently put up stats and these seem to fit pretty closely without this being your primary goal (you want to stay in a certain weight class and maintain/ improve strength to weight).
It therefore seems to make sense to say that yes it is indeed possible against people saying it is literally impossible. That is all. [/quote]
If you do the percentages
215 x .83 (I’m 17% bf) = 178.45
140 x .9 (10% body; When I first started TBH) = 126lbs
subtract those two numbers and you get 52.45lbs
Even if 125lbs was truly my natural bodyweight (which it wasn’t) that’s still only a 65.95 net gain in LBM (125 x .9, 10% bf)
So yeah, I’ve come close to the natural limit, if you’ve looked at my training history, I do like using a lot of volume for my assistance work. Size was also a goal as well since most of the best guys at my height are in the 198-220 weight classes, so i had to gain weight to where I’m at. My powerlifting training doesn’t resemble a typical powerlifting approach, overall volume and increasing that volume has been the best way to get me stronger. Size training goes hand with hand as well with that approach.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[Why use BMI as a measure though? IMO it’s useless even for untrained individuals.
I was about 135 at 19-20 so couldn’t I theoretically reach this 100lbs limit? [/quote]
Thing is it absolutely is NOT useless when it comes to populations. It’s actually a useful tool…
Anyway, all this shit is pointless, because yes - being very lean does matter - because in that state, you’re carrying the least amount of fat and the most amount of muscle, without numbers being skewed by a variety of variables.
Not to mention, people are talking about a bunch of different things in this thread - some are talking about contest weight of natty bodybuilders over the last 60 years, some are talking about pure bodyweight gains - which is not all muscle obviously. So the only way to know what you’re really carrying is to get very lean and actually see - instead of speculating and extrapolating from various formulas…it just ain’t the same thing, no matter how hard you wish for it to be.
Not to even mention silly nonsense like guessing your BF percentage and extrapolating from that? Seriously? So, someone thinks they’re “about 16%” but are really 22%? That would make a BIG difference in the actual ratio of body composition - yet people are willing to buy that bullshit? As if ANYONE can just look at themselves and know within say 1% of what they actually are? Dumbest shit I’ve ever heard…
But hey, don’t listen to me - listen to the PROFESSIONAL BODYBUILDER who competes in two respected organizations, who commands $1500.00 for a 12 week coaching program, and who has put in the work for 20 years, and doesn’t bullshit himself, or others, about what is attainable.
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
There was a guy in the supps & nutrition forum a while back who claimed he had gained 1lb of muscle or more a week for the last three months, with a decrease in bodyfat. That would mean 90lbs of muscle at least! In three months! Madness.
[/quote]
sorry Einstein but I think your abacus might be broken. [/quote]
Lol 3 months=13weeks 13weeks x 1 pound per week= 90 lbs
Math for the win.
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
If you do the percentages
215 x .83 (I’m 17% bf) = 178.45
140 x .9 (10% body; When I first started TBH) = 126lbs
subtract those two numbers and you get 52.45lbs
Even if 125lbs was truly my natural bodyweight (which it wasn’t) that’s still only a 65.95 net gain in LBM (125 x .9, 10% bf)
[/quote]
That is assuming you went from 125lbs to 140lbs while remaining 10%BF so you gained 13.5lbs of LBM within only a couple of months.
That sounds like a stretch to me for someone who is not tall even if starting skinny, i assume the 125lbs was not in a malnourished state.
Also I was only going off stats you provided yourself.
The 67lb total is not 80lbs true - but you still plan to gain some more as a natural, and other people are a bit taller and have better genetics which would help them.
Either way it does not make sense to say it is impossible to gain 80lbs LBM in my opinion.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why use BMI as a measure though? IMO it’s useless even for untrained individuals.
I was about 135 at 19-20 so couldn’t I theoretically reach this 100lbs limit? [/quote]
Thing is it absolutely is NOT useless when it comes to populations. It’s actually a useful tool…
[/quote]
Why is BMI useful?
[quote]americaninsweden wrote:
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
There was a guy in the supps & nutrition forum a while back who claimed he had gained 1lb of muscle or more a week for the last three months, with a decrease in bodyfat. That would mean 90lbs of muscle at least! In three months! Madness.
[/quote]
sorry Einstein but I think your abacus might be broken. [/quote]
Lol 3 months=13weeks 13weeks x 1 pound per week= 90 lbs
Math for the win.[/quote]
LOL!
whoops!
Maths was never my strong point, that’s why I’ve dedicated my life to picking things up and putting them down. Very little math involved.
[quote]yolo84 wrote:
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
If you do the percentages
215 x .83 (I’m 17% bf) = 178.45
140 x .9 (10% body; When I first started TBH) = 126lbs
subtract those two numbers and you get 52.45lbs
Even if 125lbs was truly my natural bodyweight (which it wasn’t) that’s still only a 65.95 net gain in LBM (125 x .9, 10% bf)
[/quote]
That is assuming you went from 125lbs to 140lbs while remaining 10%BF so you gained 13.5lbs of LBM within only a couple of months.
That sounds like a stretch to me for someone who is not tall even if starting skinny, i assume the 125lbs was not in a malnourished state.
Also I was only going off stats you provided yourself.
The 67lb total is not 80lbs true - but you still plan to gain some more as a natural, and other people are a bit taller and have better genetics which would help them.
Either way it does not make sense to say it is impossible to gain 80lbs LBM in my opinion. [/quote]
Considering I was underweight, (there was a lot of ribcage showing, and I was 140lbs before taking Cross Country seriously. Running 10 miles a day for 5-6 days a week is not conducive to size gains.)
I mean we can agree to disagree man. I actually enjoyed this discussion with you, hombre.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Why is BMI useful?
[/quote]
Because in an untrained individual, it’s pretty accurate. Obviously not for someone carrying 30 pounds more muscle than he would if he had never trained, but for sedentary populations, it’s a fairly accurate tool.
[quote]americaninsweden wrote:
I think a large part of the argument is based upon the starting point. If the starting point is skinny 15 year old lifting his first weight at 110 lbs then there is a decent chance the 50lb mark is pretty easily broken. If the starting point is a 18 year old who has physically developed and is up to 150, not so much. If it is 185, nah.
I like my chances to go to 50+lbs if I stick with it, but then again I am 6’5[/quote]
Again…that is why arguing about LBM gained is silly.
Is the lifter at/or about 3lbs per inch of height in lean(all abs in)condition?
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
This thread almost makes me want to diet down to bodybuilder stage weight, but there’s no chance that I’d be more than 170-175lbs AT BEST.
You do lose LBM when you diet down. [/quote]
I commend your honesty…you get better at maintaining your LBM as time goes by.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
Anyway, all this shit is pointless, because yes - being very lean does matter - because in that state, you’re carrying the least amount of fat and the most amount of muscle, without numbers being skewed by a variety of variables.
Not to mention, people are talking about a bunch of different things in this thread - some are talking about contest weight of natty bodybuilders over the last 60 years, some are talking about pure bodyweight gains - which is not all muscle obviously. So the only way to know what you’re really carrying is to get very lean and actually see - instead of speculating and extrapolating from various formulas…it just ain’t the same thing, no matter how hard you wish for it to be.
[/quote]
This is how I feel about it.
LBM that isn’t there when you are in ‘All Abs In’ condition was imaginary.
I realize this isn’t technically correct, but it’s the only way to look at it from a practical point of view.
[quote]detazathoth wrote:
I mean we can agree to disagree man. I actually enjoyed this discussion with you, hombre.
[/quote]
Cool we have both made our points and you know your own physiology better than anyone.
Out of interest do you think you will ever compete in a 242 class or do you plan on always staying in 220 or you have no plans either way?
Reason I ask is do you want to hit your max total in a specific class or also hit one regardless of class (which you might do at like 230-235lbs or whatever) as I know you have some ambitious PL goals.