Batman and Robin do crossfit…think about it
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I am saying is, you are no longer gaining at the rate your were because the surplus is no longer a surplus, but is now maintenance, right? I don’t really know which is why I’m asking.
So say, 3,000 cal gave you a surplus of 200 when at say 15%, but now you are at 20% and you need 3,000 cal just to maintain that body.
It just seems to me a better alternative would be to bust your ass while consuming enough calories to gain both muscle and fat, then reduce fat back down to a lower bf% say 12%-17% while maintaining muscle, and then repeat. That way each time you bulk you beenfit while reaching the higher % rather than seeing no beneift while maintaining the %. [/quote]
Uh…that is what we are talking about.
That is what I did and what most people do when bulking up. You often see me calling that “damage control”…which just means dieting down any extra body fat but not to extreme levels.
If you see a reduction in muscle gain, then yes, that would be the time to do some “damage control”.[/quote]
Am I mistaken that you have suggested people maintain a heavier weight for over a year? I’m think more like a few months maybe 6 - 8 at most. Then diet down for 3-4 months and repeat. [/quote]
That advice is for people trying to hold a heavier weight that is uncomfortable at first. It is not general advice since most newbs should be gaining weight anyway.
I said that I did that when I weighed 285lbs. That would have been a waste to hold my weight that long when I was smaller.
At 285 I was wearing a 22 sized dress shirt. I wasn’t really trying to get much bigger thus the hold in weight.
[quote]zraw wrote:
PX in colorado : ~285lbs
CT in colorado : ~220lbs
Im still undecided as wether PX or CT looked more impressive
Ok bye
[/quote]
Most people in the general public would see the bigger guy as “more impressive”. I am not sure why you are arguing that.
If you want to talk about what you alone like, do so. CT was wearing a full shirt most of the time and I was in a tank top. I would assume people would look at the guy showing the most skin in that scenario.
Not many people would be able to tell how lean CT was in a shirt.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
? This isn’t about the same person…[/quote]
lmao well ok then yes I agree ronnie coleman offseason is more impressive than that 160lbs guy with abs at my gym sorry for dropping by
[/quote]
LOL. That’s how it’s done instead of comparing two people with relative muscle size. But when you do that you’re “pulling numbers out of your ass.”
Okay you guys can discuss what you think women want now… sorry to interupt. [/quote]
LOL.
Actually, since most of the really big guys here the size I am trying to be did bulk up, why would I do what the smaller guys are doing?
That is the point with comparing the same lifter…it would be understood that the same guy would often be “softer” when trying to gain even more muscle. That means he will NOT be the exact same size dieted down as when gaining.
If a guy has 18" arms when softer, he won’t have 18" arms dieted down…so he will be smaller.
That is reality.
Fantasy world is where two people are twins with the exact same sized arms dieted down as when gaining.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I am saying is, you are no longer gaining at the rate your were because the surplus is no longer a surplus, but is now maintenance, right? I don’t really know which is why I’m asking.
So say, 3,000 cal gave you a surplus of 200 when at say 15%, but now you are at 20% and you need 3,000 cal just to maintain that body.
It just seems to me a better alternative would be to bust your ass while consuming enough calories to gain both muscle and fat, then reduce fat back down to a lower bf% say 12%-17% while maintaining muscle, and then repeat. That way each time you bulk you beenfit while reaching the higher % rather than seeing no beneift while maintaining the %. [/quote]
Uh…that is what we are talking about.
That is what I did and what most people do when bulking up. You often see me calling that “damage control”…which just means dieting down any extra body fat but not to extreme levels.
If you see a reduction in muscle gain, then yes, that would be the time to do some “damage control”.[/quote]
Am I mistaken that you have suggested people maintain a heavier weight for over a year? I’m think more like a few months maybe 6 - 8 at most. Then diet down for 3-4 months and repeat. [/quote]
That advice is for people trying to hold a heavier weight that is uncomfortable at first. It is not general advice since most newbs should be gaining weight anyway.
I said that I did that when I weighed 285lbs. That would have been a waste to hold my weight that long when I was smaller.
At 285 I was wearing a 22 sized dress shirt. I wasn’t really trying to get much bigger thus the hold in weight.[/quote]
Ok, makes sense now.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
and for the record, spider-man would own batman. [/quote]
That’s bullshit. Batman would work Spiderman. I mean, Spidey is like 170 lbs at 8% bodyfat. Batman is 205 lbs at 10% bodyfat, plus decades of intense martial arts training and cool gadgets.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Ok, makes sense now. [/quote]
yeah, in general, if I was at a top weight…for instance, like when I first hit 250lbs years back. I didn’t drop weight immediately. I held that heavier weight for about two months (still training as if the goal was size just cutting back on carb intake and a little on calories) before I started doing more cardio and dropping any.
The next time I started gaining, that 250lbs was way less difficult to maintain and grow past.
I can now hit that weight with way more muscle and less body fat.
In general, the advice would be, if you notice a slow down in progress made and that you are just gaining body fat, do NOT panic and start dropping weight right away. Give your body time to adjust to that heavier weight.
Obviously this would not be advice for someone who was way smaller and not pushing any boundaries.
This is advice for people with a goal of being really big and who aren’t sitting at home limiting themselves with invisible limits they are years from anyway.
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
and for the record, spider-man would own batman. [/quote]
That’s bullshit. Batman would work Spiderman. I mean, Spidey is like 170 lbs at 8% bodyfat. Batman is 205 lbs at 10% bodyfat, plus decades of intense martial arts training and cool gadgets. [/quote]
Batman’s EMP weapon would deactivate Spidey’s webs. Enhanced acrobatics being seen as the next obstacle, Batman would have to work very hard at breaking the bones and joints of Spiderman who can withstand hundreds of pounds of force.
Seeing as they may both be intellectual equals, the fight would go to whoever had the greater fanbase.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
? This isn’t about the same person…[/quote]
lmao well ok then yes I agree ronnie coleman offseason is more impressive than that 160lbs guy with abs at my gym sorry for dropping by
[/quote]
LOL. That’s how it’s done instead of comparing two people with relative muscle size. But when you do that you’re “pulling numbers out of your ass.”
Okay you guys can discuss what you think women want now… sorry to interupt. [/quote]
LOL.
Actually, since most of the really big guys here the size I am trying to be did bulk up, why would I do what the smaller guys are doing?
That is the point with comparing the same lifter…it would be understood that the same guy would often be “softer” when trying to gain even more muscle. That means he will NOT be the exact same size dieted down as when gaining.
If a guy has 18" arms when softer, he won’t have 18" arms dieted down…so he will be smaller.
That is reality.
Fantasy world is where two people are twins with the exact same sized arms dieted down as when gaining.[/quote]
Read: relative muscle size. Not “exact same” as you say.
And no, they would no have the same size arms when dieted down. They would have less fat in them thus be a bit smaller. However, they would look better and probably bigger. You really think after 3 months of smart dieting that an experienced bber is going to lose a significant amount of muscle in there arms? I guess when you live in fanstasy world where if you don’t have your cheesburger you all of a sudden drop five pounds and lose your set point…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
Also major LOL @ throwing in the “someone in contest condition will have a bad looking face sometimes” or whatever the crap that silly argument was
SORRY EVERYONE but girls tend to prefer a straight jawline to moonfaces which means that your face will most likely look better if we can see some of its bone/jaw structure aka 8-10% will look better than 20-25%
And if its not the case for you well my bad sorry you have a crappy bone structure maybe ur not just cut out to be good looking
This thread went from sad to pathetic[/quote]
What is with the “moon faces” comment? Most girls see someone in contest shape and say, “EWWWW!” so I am not sure why you would lift for that reason alone.[/quote]
I thought it was the consensus that what women say isn’t an indicator of what they actually want
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
and for the record, spider-man would own batman. [/quote]
That’s bullshit. Batman would work Spiderman. I mean, Spidey is like 170 lbs at 8% bodyfat. Batman is 205 lbs at 10% bodyfat, plus decades of intense martial arts training and cool gadgets. [/quote]
Batman’s EMP weapon would deactivate Spidey’s webs. Enhanced acrobatics being seen as the next obstacle, Batman would have to work very hard at breaking the bones and joints of Spiderman who can withstand hundreds of pounds of force.
Seeing as they may both be intellectual equals, the fight would go to whoever had the greater fanbase.[/quote]
Dude…spidey sense…That old man wouldnt get a hand on him or the jump in any way. Also you are implying that the EMP would deactivate his webs, maybe someone can clarify this but i always thought his webbing was pneumatic. Its like saying an EMP would render a can of silly-string obsolete. That being said, Batman’s main advantage is deception and trickery(said that in my best George Dubya voice) which again the spider-sense overcomes. But, Christian Bale would beat the crap out of Toby and Andrew combined.
And in all honesty, that above paragraph is less ridiculous than anything else argued in this thread.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
and for the record, spider-man would own batman. [/quote]
That’s bullshit. Batman would work Spiderman. I mean, Spidey is like 170 lbs at 8% bodyfat. Batman is 205 lbs at 10% bodyfat, plus decades of intense martial arts training and cool gadgets. [/quote]
Batman’s EMP weapon would deactivate Spidey’s webs. Enhanced acrobatics being seen as the next obstacle, Batman would have to work very hard at breaking the bones and joints of Spiderman who can withstand hundreds of pounds of force.
Seeing as they may both be intellectual equals, the fight would go to whoever had the greater fanbase.[/quote]
Dude…spidey sense…That old man wouldnt get a hand on him or the jump in any way. Also you are implying that the EMP would deactivate his webs, maybe someone can clarify this but i always thought his webbing was pneumatic. Its like saying an EMP would render a can of silly-string obsolete. That being said, Batman’s main advantage is deception and trickery(said that in my best George Dubya voice) which again the spider-sense overcomes. But, Christian Bale would beat the crap out of Toby and Andrew combined.
And in all honesty, that above paragraph is less ridiculous than anything else argued in this thread. [/quote]
Dude, Batman has straight punked Superman and basically given Darkseid the finger while butt fucking his henchmen. You tellin me bitch ass Spiderman is gonna be a problem for him???
Besides Batman is “Full House” while spiderman could bleed out from a tooth pick wound…
Large guy with Fat > Average guy with Abz
Large guy with Abz > Large guy with Fat
Huge guy with Fat > Large guy with Abz
Huge guy with Abz > Huge guy with Fat
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
and for the record, spider-man would own batman. [/quote]
That’s bullshit. Batman would work Spiderman. I mean, Spidey is like 170 lbs at 8% bodyfat. Batman is 205 lbs at 10% bodyfat, plus decades of intense martial arts training and cool gadgets. [/quote]
Batman’s EMP weapon would deactivate Spidey’s webs. Enhanced acrobatics being seen as the next obstacle, Batman would have to work very hard at breaking the bones and joints of Spiderman who can withstand hundreds of pounds of force.
Seeing as they may both be intellectual equals, the fight would go to whoever had the greater fanbase.[/quote]
Dude…spidey sense…That old man wouldnt get a hand on him or the jump in any way. Also you are implying that the EMP would deactivate his webs, maybe someone can clarify this but i always thought his webbing was pneumatic. Its like saying an EMP would render a can of silly-string obsolete. That being said, Batman’s main advantage is deception and trickery(said that in my best George Dubya voice) which again the spider-sense overcomes. But, Christian Bale would beat the crap out of Toby and Andrew combined.
And in all honesty, that above paragraph is less ridiculous than anything else argued in this thread. [/quote]
I think you’re right in it being like silly string. As long as the batarangs did not stick to it, he would tear Spidey a new asshole. I’m not sure how powerful spidey sense is either. Can he predict blows every single time, or just some of the time?
[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
Large guy with Fat > Average guy with Abz
Large guy with Abz > Large guy with Fat
Huge guy with Fat > Large guy with Abz
Huge guy with Abz > Huge guy with Fat[/quote]
Shit man, don’t bring logic into this thread. It makes too much sense.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
and for the record, spider-man would own batman. [/quote]
That’s bullshit. Batman would work Spiderman. I mean, Spidey is like 170 lbs at 8% bodyfat. Batman is 205 lbs at 10% bodyfat, plus decades of intense martial arts training and cool gadgets. [/quote]
Batman’s EMP weapon would deactivate Spidey’s webs. Enhanced acrobatics being seen as the next obstacle, Batman would have to work very hard at breaking the bones and joints of Spiderman who can withstand hundreds of pounds of force.
Seeing as they may both be intellectual equals, the fight would go to whoever had the greater fanbase.[/quote]
Dude…spidey sense…That old man wouldnt get a hand on him or the jump in any way. Also you are implying that the EMP would deactivate his webs, maybe someone can clarify this but i always thought his webbing was pneumatic. Its like saying an EMP would render a can of silly-string obsolete. That being said, Batman’s main advantage is deception and trickery(said that in my best George Dubya voice) which again the spider-sense overcomes. But, Christian Bale would beat the crap out of Toby and Andrew combined.
And in all honesty, that above paragraph is less ridiculous than anything else argued in this thread. [/quote]
Yes it’s obvious you are above all else in this thread thank you
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
Also major LOL @ throwing in the “someone in contest condition will have a bad looking face sometimes” or whatever the crap that silly argument was
SORRY EVERYONE but girls tend to prefer a straight jawline to moonfaces which means that your face will most likely look better if we can see some of its bone/jaw structure aka 8-10% will look better than 20-25%
And if its not the case for you well my bad sorry you have a crappy bone structure maybe ur not just cut out to be good looking
This thread went from sad to pathetic[/quote]
What is with the “moon faces” comment? Most girls see someone in contest shape and say, “EWWWW!” so I am not sure why you would lift for that reason alone.[/quote]
I thought it was the consensus that what women say isn’t an indicator of what they actually want[/quote]
TRUTH.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Read: relative muscle size. Not “exact same” as you say.
And no, they would no have the same size arms when dieted down. They would have less fat in them thus be a bit smaller. However, they would look better and probably bigger. You really think after 3 months of smart dieting that an experienced bber is going to lose a significant amount of muscle in there arms? I guess when you live in fanstasy world where if you don’t have your cheesburger you all of a sudden drop five pounds and lose your set point…[/quote]
LOL. Uh, yeah fantasy world…where the results are real.
Either way, if he diets he loses size to some degree so the debate again is bigger and a little softer vs smaller and really lean.
While most people can say they want to be really big and really lean, the truth is, there are so few people with the genetics to even get really big and muscular that people will still notice the size above definition unless someone is truly chubby or obese.
[quote]zraw wrote:
PX in colorado : ~285lbs
CT in colorado : ~220lbs
Im still undecided as wether PX or CT looked more impressive[/quote]
If we were to ask the general public/average gym member, I do believe they’d say these guys are nearly identical.
If we ask someone with any serious experience lifting, it’s a straight-up coin toss. Thib is clearly leaner, but it would be a serious stretch of the definition to consider X’s condition some kind of “fat.”
Prof, if you’d prefer this pic disappear, no prob. I’m just following this train wreck/circular logic thread from a slight distance and I don’t have a dog in the fight.