[quote]steven alex wrote:
I couldnt even see a quiestion beyond all that fucking self pitying “why me” bullshit
[/quote]
Why would you be more against me getting to the truth than allowing me to have a discussion about it?
There was no “why me” involved in this at all.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Either way…you were seeking answers about the natty 80lbs of muscle gain.
You used yourself as an example, so all you have to do is go get a hydrostatic bf% and shut everybody up (I think we are all willing to accept your 150lb and 11% starting point).
[/quote]
If you accept the previous caliper reading, then you should accept a caliper reading again.
Why state I need to be hydrostatically weighed to prove this?[/quote]
Because it is by far the most accurate way of doing it…calipers have a very wide range of human error.
This will be fun, I would love to see it…what do you possibly have to lose?[/quote]
You are missing the point…you are setting standards that must be met that aren’t even constant…which eliminates the usefulness.
Bottom line, to answer your previous question, you simply need to know the weight and current body fat of someone to calculate lean body mass. You don’t need them to be hydrostatically weighed because the only 100% sure way of knowing EXACTLY how much fat someone has is still autopsy.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
I couldnt even see a quiestion beyond all that fucking self pitying “why me” bullshit
[/quote]
Why would you be more against me getting to the truth than allowing me to have a discussion about it?
There was no “why me” involved in this at all.[/quote]
When did I say I was more against you getting to the truth?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Either way…you were seeking answers about the natty 80lbs of muscle gain.
You used yourself as an example, so all you have to do is go get a hydrostatic bf% and shut everybody up (I think we are all willing to accept your 150lb and 11% starting point).
[/quote]
If you accept the previous caliper reading, then you should accept a caliper reading again.
Why state I need to be hydrostatically weighed to prove this?[/quote]
Because it is by far the most accurate way of doing it…calipers have a very wide range of human error.
This will be fun, I would love to see it…what do you possibly have to lose?[/quote]
You are missing the point…you are setting standards that must be met that aren’t even constant…which eliminates the usefulness.
Bottom line, to answer your previous question, you simply need to know the weight and current body fat of someone to calculate lean body mass. You don’t need them to be hydrostatically weighed because the only 100% sure way of knowing EXACTLY how much fat someone has is still autopsy.[/quote]
Ok then can you please get one of those so we can be 100% accurate?
[quote]steven alex wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
I couldnt even see a quiestion beyond all that fucking self pitying “why me” bullshit
[/quote]
Why would you be more against me getting to the truth than allowing me to have a discussion about it?
There was no “why me” involved in this at all.[/quote]
When did I say I was more against you getting to the truth?[/quote]
Then if you have no problem with what I am writing, why are you still responding?
Please answer the question.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Either way…you were seeking answers about the natty 80lbs of muscle gain.
You used yourself as an example, so all you have to do is go get a hydrostatic bf% and shut everybody up (I think we are all willing to accept your 150lb and 11% starting point).
[/quote]
If you accept the previous caliper reading, then you should accept a caliper reading again.
Why state I need to be hydrostatically weighed to prove this?[/quote]
Because it is by far the most accurate way of doing it…calipers have a very wide range of human error.
This will be fun, I would love to see it…what do you possibly have to lose?[/quote]
You are missing the point…you are setting standards that must be met that aren’t even constant…which eliminates the usefulness.
Bottom line, to answer your previous question, you simply need to know the weight and current body fat of someone to calculate lean body mass. You don’t need them to be hydrostatically weighed because the only 100% sure way of knowing EXACTLY how much fat someone has is still autopsy.[/quote]
Right…hydrostatic testing is the most accepted way of determining bodyfat…once we have your weight and bodyfat… we determine LBM…then we use your 150lb numbers and prove if you in fact put on 80lbs of muscle.
This does not seem to be that difficult.
I don’t even give a shit about using the pro-hormones.
I would think you would be jumping at something to throw in Brickheads face.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Either way…you were seeking answers about the natty 80lbs of muscle gain.
You used yourself as an example, so all you have to do is go get a hydrostatic bf% and shut everybody up (I think we are all willing to accept your 150lb and 11% starting point).
[/quote]
If you accept the previous caliper reading, then you should accept a caliper reading again.
Why state I need to be hydrostatically weighed to prove this?[/quote]
Because it is by far the most accurate way of doing it…calipers have a very wide range of human error.
This will be fun, I would love to see it…what do you possibly have to lose?[/quote]
You are missing the point…you are setting standards that must be met that aren’t even constant…which eliminates the usefulness.
Bottom line, to answer your previous question, you simply need to know the weight and current body fat of someone to calculate lean body mass. You don’t need them to be hydrostatically weighed because the only 100% sure way of knowing EXACTLY how much fat someone has is still autopsy.[/quote]
Ok then can you please get one of those so we can be 100% accurate?
[/quote]
I have been measured at 15% at a weight of 250lbs with calipers recently.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Right…hydrostatic testing is the most accepted way of determining bodyfat…once we have your weight and bodyfat… we determine LBM…then we use your 150lb numbers and prove if you in fact put on 80lbs of muscle.
This does not seem to be that difficult.
I don’t even give a shit about using the pro-hormones.
I would think you would be jumping at something to throw in Brickheads face.[/quote]
This is gibberish. If you accept a caliper reading for the first weight, then a caliper reading should be ok for the second.
It makes no sense to allow two different methods and claim you need hydrostatic weighing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
I couldnt even see a quiestion beyond all that fucking self pitying “why me” bullshit
[/quote]
Why would you be more against me getting to the truth than allowing me to have a discussion about it?
There was no “why me” involved in this at all.[/quote]
When did I say I was more against you getting to the truth?[/quote]
Then if you have no problem with what I am writing, why are you still responding?
Please answer the question.[/quote]
?? Huh wtf are you going on about man? What was your question?
Because you can’t accept the previous reading unless: It is the same person with the same calipers doing the reading. But calipers all state they are an approximation of between 2%-4% off of listed number.
So if it is a different person with different calipers and measuring in a different spot and applying different pressure the resulyts are skewed!
For an example at my Cardiologists last week my Blood Pressure was measured by 3 different people within 10 minutes and state of rest did not change. They all had 3 different results from a 125/87, 102/65 and then a 114/85 using the cuff and stethoscope method. That is a pretty big variance there right?
That is why being weighed hydrostaticaly is considered the best because after repeatable tests with different machines and operators the results are within 1% of each other.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Right…hydrostatic testing is the most accepted way of determining bodyfat…once we have your weight and bodyfat… we determine LBM…then we use your 150lb numbers and prove if you in fact put on 80lbs of muscle.
This does not seem to be that difficult.
I don’t even give a shit about using the pro-hormones.
I would think you would be jumping at something to throw in Brickheads face.[/quote]
This is gibberish. If you accept a caliper reading for the first weight, then a caliper reading should be ok for the second.
It makes no sense to allow two different methods and claim you need hydrostatic weighing.
[/quote]
Hydrostatic bodyfat testing is an order of magnitude more accurate that a caliper reading.
Unless you had somebody really good on the calipers back when you were 150 lbs (doubtful) I don’t see why you are so worried about getting in a damn pool for a waaaaaay more accurate number?
You sound worried.
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
Because you can’t accept the previous reading unless: It is the same person with the same calipers doing the reading. But calipers all state they are an approximation of between 2%-4% off of listed number.
So if it is a different person with different calipers and measuring in a different pots and applying different pressure the resulyts are skewed!
For an example at my Cardiologists last week my Blood Pressure was measured by 3 different people within 10 minutes and state of rest did not change. They all had 3 different results from a 125/87, 102/65 and then a 114/85 using the cuff and stethoscope method. That is a pretty big variance there right?
That is why being weighed hydrostaticaly is considered the best because after repeatable tests with different machines and operators the results are within 1% of each other.
[/quote]
No one is questioning whether one is best.
I don’t know anything about any place to even get hydrostatically weighed nor do I care about that.
If you are claiming I have to be hydrostatically weighed, then that makes the first reading from when I was 150lbs irrelevant…which eliminates the usefulness.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Hydrostatic bodyfat testing is an order of magnitude more accurate that a caliper reading.
Unless you had somebody really good on the calipers back when you were 150 lbs (doubtful) I don’t see why you are so worried about getting in a damn pool for a waaaaaay more accurate number?
You sound worried.[/quote]
Are you paying for this pool?
Are you driving me to this pool?
Where is this pool located and why is it all values are disregarded now?
I doubt most of the people who even discuss body fat percentages have been hydrostatically weighed.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
Because you can’t accept the previous reading unless: It is the same person with the same calipers doing the reading. But calipers all state they are an approximation of between 2%-4% off of listed number.
So if it is a different person with different calipers and measuring in a different pots and applying different pressure the resulyts are skewed!
For an example at my Cardiologists last week my Blood Pressure was measured by 3 different people within 10 minutes and state of rest did not change. They all had 3 different results from a 125/87, 102/65 and then a 114/85 using the cuff and stethoscope method. That is a pretty big variance there right?
That is why being weighed hydrostaticaly is considered the best because after repeatable tests with different machines and operators the results are within 1% of each other.
[/quote]
No one is questioning whether one is best.
I don’t know anything about any place to even get hydrostatically weighed nor do I care about that.
If you are claiming I have to be hydrostatically weighed, then that makes the first reading from when I was 150lbs irrelevant…which eliminates the usefulness.[/quote]
You kept wailing for an 80lb of natty muscle answer…and claimed to be such an example…I was just giving you the chance to prove it.
I said before we would give you the 11% bodyfat reading…why not at least try it out.
For the record most if not all colleges and universities have the facilities and do weekly testings…for very little money.
Come on now…don’t back peddle at this point.
Either way, my questions asked are very clear…and no one yet has explained where these values are coming from other than hearsay.
I gave my caliper readings and am now told I need to be weighed in a pool…after being told that my stats are irrelevant because I used a pro-hormone…which begs the question, why are they still asking about hydrostatic weighing.
I am sure this thread will be nothing but the same group of people NOT responding to the thread topic by tomorrow.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
You kept wailing for an 80lb of natty muscle answer…and claimed to be such an example…I was just giving you the chance to prove it.
[/quote]
I already proved it with caliper readings.
if you claim that isn’t good enough now, then I ask you how many “natural competitors” were hydrostatically weighed 60 years ago to come up with this “80lbs limit”.
is it that easy to get hydrostatically weighed?
i have literally no idea where you would get this done or the cost
utah lama have you had this done?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
Because you can’t accept the previous reading unless: It is the same person with the same calipers doing the reading. But calipers all state they are an approximation of between 2%-4% off of listed number.
So if it is a different person with different calipers and measuring in a different pots and applying different pressure the resulyts are skewed!
For an example at my Cardiologists last week my Blood Pressure was measured by 3 different people within 10 minutes and state of rest did not change. They all had 3 different results from a 125/87, 102/65 and then a 114/85 using the cuff and stethoscope method. That is a pretty big variance there right?
That is why being weighed hydrostaticaly is considered the best because after repeatable tests with different machines and operators the results are within 1% of each other.
[/quote]
No one is questioning whether one is best.
I don’t know anything about any place to even get hydrostatically weighed nor do I care about that.
If you are claiming I have to be hydrostatically weighed, then that makes the first reading from when I was 150lbs irrelevant…which eliminates the usefulness.[/quote]
You kept wailing for an 80lb of natty muscle answer…and claimed to be such an example…I was just giving you the chance to prove it.
I said before we would give you the 11% bodyfat reading…why not at least try it out.
For the record most if not all colleges and universities have the facilities and do weekly testings…for very little money.
Come on now…don’t back peddle at this point.
[/quote]
You would think with all the energy he expends all the time on this forum trying desperately to prove himself right on everything he would leap at the chance doing as you ask and proving everyone wrong
And calculating what your LBM is at a certain pecentage and then trying to correlate what it is at a higher percentage does not work because it doesn’t take into the account of muscle/loss and water loss during the diet.
Sidenote : When I used to fight and had to cut water to make my weight class I would lose around 10-14pds of water in a 24 hr period to do this. At a pretty lean bodyfat of around 10%. My bodyweight was 195-199 going into the cut and I would weigh 185 for weigh-ins. Kinda skews perception of LBM huh?
185lbs @ 10% or 199lbs @ 10%.
[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:
And calculating what your LBM is at a certain pecentage and then trying to correlate what it is at a higher percentage does not work because it doesn’t take into the account of muscle/loss and water loss during the diet.
Sidenote : When I used to fight and had to cut water to make my weight class I would lose around 10-14pds of water in a 24 hr period to do this. At a pretty lean bodyfat of around 10%. My bodyweight was 195-199 going into the cut and I would weigh 185 for weigh-ins. Kinda skews perception of LBM huh?
185lbs @ 10% or 199lbs @ 10%.
[/quote]
But I don’t ever plan on competing and see no need to be under 10% body fat unless I do…so you are saying that no one can calculate lean body mass unless dieted down to contest shape?
That makes no sense. Most of your muscle mass is water to start with so why only look at this in a depleted state?
If I wasn’t in contest shape before, then it should hold now.
Question:
Are you saying that someone can pass this limit up if they simply avoid getting into contest shape?