LIMITS

Training
401

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Well that was hard…it you seem that the University of Texas medical school at Houston provides the service as training for their medical students.

I left a message asking for info.

Is that far away from you X?

https://med.uth.edu/[/quote]

LOL. That means you are a clinical patient. That means you have to fit your schedule into their schedule for their class credits. That isn’t the same as “free to the public”.

We did the same at my school. The patients wave much of the fees because they got worked on my students.[/quote]

Like I said, Utah State charged $20. If it is crazy more than that…YOU WIN

and shit.

402

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Awwwww come on now…don’t be grumpy, you can think of another excuse later on if you want.[/quote]

Don’t need an excuse. My caliper reading shows I did it. You simply want to move the goal posts now.[/quote]

So the same guy did your caliper at 250lbs as did it at 150lbs?

Same guy?

403

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Awwwww come on now…don’t be grumpy, you can think of another excuse later on if you want.[/quote]

Don’t need an excuse. My caliper reading shows I did it. You simply want to move the goal posts now.[/quote]

So the same guy did your caliper at 250lbs as did it at 150lbs?

Same guy?[/quote]

Yep. Known him for years. Next question?

404

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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]

250 x 85%(100%-15%) = 212.5
150 x 89%(100%-11%) = 133.5
difference = 79
result of free test = FAILED did not add 80 LBM
next
please send low cals humble pie to OP

405

OK off to the gym.

Hope to see you change your mind bout the pool fat testing.

406

I’m not sure where all this talk of an “80 pound limit” or a “15 year limit” came from.

What have I said on this forum?

Stuff like:

No natural has gained 80 pounds LBM.
A natural can expect to gain about 40 to 50 pounds of muscle with good training, nutrition, and genetics.
By the 15th year, provided everything has been done right, gains are pretty much dried up. Actually I said that gains are negligible after the fifth year or so provided everything i done right.

I don’t know where I said “15 year limit” or “80 pound limit” but if people want to use those terms, that’s fine with me.

I also posted pictures of behemoths at 250 to 300 pounds NOT in contest shape (some are powerlifters, so “contest shape” wouldn’t apply considering most powerlifters don’t compete at 5 or 6% bodyfat).

407

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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?[/quote]

This is a tricky question because in relation to the discussion on this topic in this thread the answer is no.

If we are speaking about overeating and and not caring about aestethics, health and longevity of life ie: Looking a Sumo wrestlers then the answer is yes but with about 40%-50% BF levels that when they stop competing and come down in weight to a relative (average population) bodyfat % they lose almost of their gains.

relevant study here:

Keeping the Same Bf% and gain 80-100lbs of LBM answer if done naturally the answer is no.

Gaing LBM of more than 80-100lbs naturally and done natural but not with the same BF%

My .02 cents

Edit: Will be back later in 3 hrs -need to g to work.

408


What an 80 to 100 pound muscular gain looks like. No, 80 pounds isn’t the limit… when drugs are involved.

409


Tom Prince, offseaon and smoothed out (this is NOT “near contest shape”), probably in the high 200’s or 300.

410

Brick -

what is your opinion on X claiming to start at 150 11% and to currently be 250 15%?

hasn’t he gained 80lbs LBM?

411

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
This site would be better off if the professor x detractors would simply place him on ignore and vice versa.

If BrownDisaster (although he cracks me up) SuperSayin, DoubleDuece, BrickHead, Zraw, Steven Alex and a few others who Surely I am forgetting would just place Professor X on ignore and he did the same in return this forum would be WAY better off.[/quote]

What is strange is that they have to come into threads I started to keep this up.

It isn’t like I am following anyone else around the way they follow me.

I don’t need to put them on ignore. Nothing they write is of much concern to me the way what I write seems to force them to respond.

Bottom line, there is no basis for this specific “80lbs limit”…yet people would rather let that be stated as some kind of pseudo-fact and let someone tell newbs that no natural can pass this rather than dare let me discuss where these limits even come from.[/quote]

You dont follow them around, you just start new threads with the same old arguments. That is why they are “following you around”.

412

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:

As I stated in the other thread, you did NOT do what you are arguing. You are arguing that it’s possible to gain 80lbs of muscle naturally. You have admitted to using prohormones in the past, which, for all intended purposes, are steroids.

I have no idea if kingbeef used or not, so if he is clean, then he might have accomplished what you are arguing, but you have not.[/quote]

I have stated that I know my genetics are nowhere near the best so if people can do better than me, why would you set a limit that close to what people are actually doing?

if a prohormone from this site means “not natural” then why is Stu allowed to claim natural status?[/quote]

I have not set a limit on anyone, jackass. Stop putting words in my mouth.

[/quote]

Right, you didn’t.

That’s what I don’t get: I asked him where he sees himself in the future in terms of size and leanness considering that after 15 years of lifting, gains are dried up or are so negligible it wouldn’t be noticeable to the human eye (or even a scale, unless you go by GRAMS of muscle gained), and then he started to speak of limits. I also asked him this because he talks about seemingly never ending progress, as if he’s in a constant state of progression. Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with that sort of talk and I’d like to see people progress, but it surprised me considering what I explain here: gains are negligible or done by 15 years of training, most likely much less.

Where did I state a limit for him?

I honestly think he could gain more mass if he hit his lower body properly.

413

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Brick -

what is your opinion on X claiming to start at 150 11% and to currently be 250 15%?

hasn’t he gained 80lbs LBM?[/quote]

  1. That he’s not 250 at 15%. Rather he is more like in he mid-20’s% bodyfat.
  2. Not in the way we speak of here, where we are trying to stay focused on training induced gains. I think he has gained more like 30 to 40 pounds training induced LBM, which is very good!
414

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Brick -

what is your opinion on X claiming to start at 150 11% and to currently be 250 15%?

hasn’t he gained 80lbs LBM?[/quote]

  1. That he’s not 250 at 15%. Rather he is more like in he mid-20’s% bodyfat.
  2. Not in the way we speak of here, where we are trying to stay focused on training induced gains. I think he has gained more like 30 to 40 pounds training induced LBM, which is very good![/quote]

He said he has just had his BF done at 15% though?

can you explain “training induced gains” - aren’t all his training induced?

415

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Brick -

what is your opinion on X claiming to start at 150 11% and to currently be 250 15%?

hasn’t he gained 80lbs LBM?[/quote]

  1. That he’s not 250 at 15%. Rather he is more like in he mid-20’s% bodyfat.
  2. Not in the way we speak of here, where we are trying to stay focused on training induced gains. I think he has gained more like 30 to 40 pounds training induced LBM, which is very good![/quote]

He said he has just had his BF done at 15% though?

can you explain “training induced gains” - aren’t all his training induced?[/quote]

I don’t believe he’s 15% because he’d appear far leaner in pictures if he’s 15% (going off the picture he has recently posted several times).

Training induced means gains not induced by puberty or natural growth. Anyway, if you go by what I think is his current mid-20s percentage, it doesn’t come out to an 80 pound gain. If he is 25% bodyfat, which I believe he is or around there in that picture, you come out about 188 pounds of LBM. At 150, with 11% bodyfat, you come out with 134 pounds LBM. So that would be a 54 pound gain in LBM, which is hugely impressive for a natural!

416

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Brick -

what is your opinion on X claiming to start at 150 11% and to currently be 250 15%?

hasn’t he gained 80lbs LBM?[/quote]

  1. That he’s not 250 at 15%. Rather he is more like in he mid-20’s% bodyfat.
  2. Not in the way we speak of here, where we are trying to stay focused on training induced gains. I think he has gained more like 30 to 40 pounds training induced LBM, which is very good![/quote]

He said he has just had his BF done at 15% though?

can you explain “training induced gains” - aren’t all his training induced?[/quote]

I don’t believe he’s 15% because he’d appear far leaner in pictures if he’s 15% (going off the picture he has recently posted several times).

Training induced means gains not induced by puberty or natural growth. Anyway, if you go by what I think is his current mid-20s percentage, it doesn’t come out to an 80 pound gain. If he is 25% bodyfat, which I believe he is or around there in that picture, you come out about 188 pounds of LBM. At 150, with 11% bodyfat, you come out with 134 pounds LBM. So that would be a 54 pound gain in LBM, which is hugely impressive for a natural!
[/quote]

i think he is saying he is leaner than that pic which has been going around so that may account for the 15% reading as opposed to your estimate

417

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Brick -

what is your opinion on X claiming to start at 150 11% and to currently be 250 15%?

hasn’t he gained 80lbs LBM?[/quote]

  1. That he’s not 250 at 15%. Rather he is more like in he mid-20’s% bodyfat.
  2. Not in the way we speak of here, where we are trying to stay focused on training induced gains. I think he has gained more like 30 to 40 pounds training induced LBM, which is very good![/quote]

He said he has just had his BF done at 15% though?

can you explain “training induced gains” - aren’t all his training induced?[/quote]

I don’t believe he’s 15% because he’d appear far leaner in pictures if he’s 15% (going off the picture he has recently posted several times).

Training induced means gains not induced by puberty or natural growth. Anyway, if you go by what I think is his current mid-20s percentage, it doesn’t come out to an 80 pound gain. If he is 25% bodyfat, which I believe he is or around there in that picture, you come out about 188 pounds of LBM. At 150, with 11% bodyfat, you come out with 134 pounds LBM. So that would be a 54 pound gain in LBM, which is hugely impressive for a natural!
[/quote]

i think he is saying he is leaner than that pic which has been going around so that may account for the 15% reading as opposed to your estimate[/quote]

Perhaps.

Wait a second… if I recall correctly (I might be wrong), he said in that picture he was 255 and what I believe to be 25% bf. Now he is 250 at 15%! That is an outrageous recomp for someone of that training experience!

At 255 at 25% bodyfat, that would be 191 pounds LBM.
At 250 at 15%, that would be 212 pounds LBM!

We’re talking a 20 pound LBM difference from a short term recomp!

Does anyone know what a man at 250 and 15% looks like? Ever stood near one?

418

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
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]

Yes I have…most 4 year colleges and universities have the facilities…and with the huge boom in Crossfit “body challenges” and similar they usually test every weekend.

I believe the cost at Utah State is $20[/quote]

thanks

is this seen as being as good as a dexa scan do you know?
[/quote]

It’s up there. It’s considered the “gold standard” but in reality there are sources for error (much lower than calipers though.) Error normally comes from the estimation of residual volume in lungs as well as different bone densities.

DEXA is hella precise. You can also go for an MRI but it’s significantly more expensive, takes away from a patient who actually needs it etc…

419

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Brick -

what is your opinion on X claiming to start at 150 11% and to currently be 250 15%?

hasn’t he gained 80lbs LBM?[/quote]

The caliper test is useless for us. You have to understand, if someone tells someone that she/he is fat it can create a distance between the 2. But put in a cheap tool(caliper) use a short break(consult a table, add a few numbers) and the fat verdict comes from some unknown expert(s). In a gym setting any student working at minimum wage can charge 20$ or more while earning a buck, that is what many consider good business. A personal trainer might prove you that you are improving under her/his guidance and sell you more private sessions.
It only serves to mesure the under skin fat. Deep down fat escapes the caliper test everytime.

A coach with a great reputation(if my memory serves me well it was Christian Thibodeau) here wrote that at a convention he was tested via calipers by the bests and results went from 2 to 12% the same day. So X or Y might get a 15 a 20 a 23% reading by reputable people and add 5% (hiden fat) and 15 might be 28 or 10.
Now you know why he will never get in the pool because that would include the hidden fat.

420

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]yolo84 wrote:
Brick -

what is your opinion on X claiming to start at 150 11% and to currently be 250 15%?

hasn’t he gained 80lbs LBM?[/quote]

  1. That he’s not 250 at 15%. Rather he is more like in he mid-20’s% bodyfat.
  2. Not in the way we speak of here, where we are trying to stay focused on training induced gains. I think he has gained more like 30 to 40 pounds training induced LBM, which is very good![/quote]

He said he has just had his BF done at 15% though?

can you explain “training induced gains” - aren’t all his training induced?[/quote]

I don’t believe he’s 15% because he’d appear far leaner in pictures if he’s 15% (going off the picture he has recently posted several times).

Training induced means gains not induced by puberty or natural growth. Anyway, if you go by what I think is his current mid-20s percentage, it doesn’t come out to an 80 pound gain. If he is 25% bodyfat, which I believe he is or around there in that picture, you come out about 188 pounds of LBM. At 150, with 11% bodyfat, you come out with 134 pounds LBM. So that would be a 54 pound gain in LBM, which is hugely impressive for a natural!
[/quote]

i think he is saying he is leaner than that pic which has been going around so that may account for the 15% reading as opposed to your estimate[/quote]

Perhaps.

Wait a second… if I recall correctly (I might be wrong), he said in that picture he was 255 and what I believe to be 25% bf. Now he is 250 at 15%! That is an outrageous recomp for someone of that training experience!

At 255 at 25% bodyfat, that would be 191 pounds LBM.
At 250 at 15%, that would be 212 pounds LBM!

We’re talking a 20 pound LBM difference from a short term recomp!

Does anyone know what a man at 250 and 15% looks like? Ever stood near one? [/quote]

dude stop trolling with the 25% estimate lol

come on now dont be silly

the recomp could be due to muscle memory from his accident last year

yeah a 250 dude at 15% would be a huge moutherfucker

i train at a gym with multiple people 280-300 at 10% (mostly pretty tall, over 6ft)

there are around a dozen Pros there and some very well known faces from time to time (Ronnie, etc)

i also trained for years at a top PL gym - people with 1000lb squats, 800+ DL - all huge fuckers

i do realise how big this is