[quote]super saiyan wrote:
I oscillate between LOLing at PX and feeling sorry for him. What could possible drive someone to devote 50,000 posts to arguing on the internet with strangers, desperately trying to prove you are right?[/quote]
When MTV’s Catfish reveal next season that his Colorado stint was actually his cousin who has never even heard of the T-Nation forum before, you will find out. [/quote]
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.[/quote]
i agree with the overall point that underwater. would be more accurate though. [/quote]
I dont get it. Where the fuck is Captain Outliar? Is he hiding somewhere in the congo bulking on gorilla meat? Why are we even accepting that the plot of X-Men is bodybuilding’s future.
This is so fucking stupid. [/quote]
What is stupid is for anyone to ignore that apparently if you simply are ok with carrying more body fat, these limits don’t seem to exist.
People are relating this to health…when I doubt most of the people typing here are under 10% body fat and that does not dictate health in itself at all.[/quote]
Why do you even bother? I get it, you have your mind set on this topic, the others do as well. So how about we all just move along here and stop trying to debate a topic that is past debatability at this point. The unstoppable force meets the immovable object is now this subforum. There is no longer value in these banters. [/quote]
I am debating his specific “ten year limits” and his “15 year limits”.
I am asking why anyone else is ok with him telling people that no one can do better than that.
[/quote]
Because people understand these are general limits with variations and exceptions. Nobody seriously believes that on the 15th anniversary of your first workout the Gainz Factory shuts down for good, leaving the hard-working townspeople to find work elsewhere in the body of a noobie weight trainer.[/quote]
This seems like a pretty reasonable compromise to me.
Lets think about this for a second. In order to gain 80lbs of muscle someone would have to go from 150lbs at 10%bf to (assuming they are ok with holding a little extra fat) 258 at 20%bf. If that person was already past any growth spurts when the first measurement was taken, 22yo or so, then that is going to be next to impossible to do I think. I wont say its impossible but without steroids its going to be insanely difficult. Now if they are cool with gaining to 30%bf while gaining that 80lbs then they will have to weigh 280. Someone can check my math here but just thought I would put some numbers with it to give a little perspective.
This part is relevant to this conversation:
Why is this so important for Dave? Well, Dave recently sent me the results of a seven-site skinfold test he’d done on himself. The verdict: 290 pounds and 12% body fat.
I don’t believe it. Don’t get me wrong, for a 290 pound guy, Dave is surprisingly lean.
Although Dave’s skinfolds might say he’s only 12%, that abdominal region tells me something very different. As you can see, most of Dave’s body fat is central adiposity, or fat between his abdominal organs.
Since skinfold tests only measure subcutaneous adiposity, or fat between the skin and the muscle, I think the skinfold test is a poor one for someone like Dave. Therefore if we want to measure true fat loss, we’ll need to use a DEXA measure.
I think he actually came out to 19% on his DEXA scan so that just goes to show you that big, relatively tight guys can throw off a caliper test pretty far (20lbs of fat in this case).
This part is relevant to this conversation:
Why is this so important for Dave? Well, Dave recently sent me the results of a seven-site skinfold test he’d done on himself. The verdict: 290 pounds and 12% body fat.
I don’t believe it. Don’t get me wrong, for a 290 pound guy, Dave is surprisingly lean.
Although Dave’s skinfolds might say he’s only 12%, that abdominal region tells me something very different. As you can see, most of Dave’s body fat is central adiposity, or fat between his abdominal organs.
Since skinfold tests only measure subcutaneous adiposity, or fat between the skin and the muscle, I think the skinfold test is a poor one for someone like Dave. Therefore if we want to measure true fat loss, we’ll need to use a DEXA measure.
I think he actually came out to 19% on his DEXA scan so that just goes to show you that big, relatively tight guys can throw off a caliper test pretty far (20lbs of fat in this case).[/quote]
alot of heavy steroid users carry more visceral fat which may explain this ^
This part is relevant to this conversation:
Why is this so important for Dave? Well, Dave recently sent me the results of a seven-site skinfold test he’d done on himself. The verdict: 290 pounds and 12% body fat.
I don’t believe it. Don’t get me wrong, for a 290 pound guy, Dave is surprisingly lean.
Although Dave’s skinfolds might say he’s only 12%, that abdominal region tells me something very different. As you can see, most of Dave’s body fat is central adiposity, or fat between his abdominal organs.
Since skinfold tests only measure subcutaneous adiposity, or fat between the skin and the muscle, I think the skinfold test is a poor one for someone like Dave. Therefore if we want to measure true fat loss, we’ll need to use a DEXA measure.
I think he actually came out to 19% on his DEXA scan so that just goes to show you that big, relatively tight guys can throw off a caliper test pretty far (20lbs of fat in this case).[/quote]
Exactly…the bigger the “full house” the harder it is to get an accurate skin fold reading.
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Lets think about this for a second. In order to gain 80lbs of muscle someone would have to go from 150lbs at 10%bf to (assuming they are ok with holding a little extra fat) 258 at 20%bf. If that person was already past any growth spurts when the first measurement was taken, 22yo or so, then that is going to be next to impossible to do I think. I wont say its impossible but without steroids its going to be insanely difficult. Now if they are cool with gaining to 30%bf while gaining that 80lbs then they will have to weigh 280. Someone can check my math here but just thought I would put some numbers with it to give a little perspective.[/quote]
At 280 minus 84(30%) we have 196 LBM.
At 150 minus 15(10%) we have 135 LBM.
The added LBM is 61.
It seems you felt in the fullhouse trap.
Eat more = gain more.
Eat more = gain more, the trap is believing the more is muscles.
Taking into account the hiden fat, added LBM is likely 40 to 50, far from the dream.
Millions of people add over 150 by eating without any kind of resistance training.
Do they have the best genes ?
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Lets think about this for a second. In order to gain 80lbs of muscle someone would have to go from 150lbs at 10%bf to (assuming they are ok with holding a little extra fat) 258 at 20%bf. If that person was already past any growth spurts when the first measurement was taken, 22yo or so, then that is going to be next to impossible to do I think. I wont say its impossible but without steroids its going to be insanely difficult. Now if they are cool with gaining to 30%bf while gaining that 80lbs then they will have to weigh 280. Someone can check my math here but just thought I would put some numbers with it to give a little perspective.[/quote]
At 280 minus 84(30%) we have 196 LBM.
At 150 minus 15(10%) we have 135 LBM.
The added LBM is 61.
It seems you felt in the fullhouse trap.
Eat more = gain more.
Eat more = gain more, the trap is believing the more is muscles.
Taking into account the hiden fat, added LBM is likely 40 to 50, far from the dream.
Millions of people add over 150 by eating without any kind of resistance training.
Do they have the best genes ?[/quote]
Don’t think he fell for a trap as much as just messed up a little with numbers…
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
Lets think about this for a second. In order to gain 80lbs of muscle someone would have to go from 150lbs at 10%bf to (assuming they are ok with holding a little extra fat) 258 at 20%bf. If that person was already past any growth spurts when the first measurement was taken, 22yo or so, then that is going to be next to impossible to do I think. I wont say its impossible but without steroids its going to be insanely difficult. Now if they are cool with gaining to 30%bf while gaining that 80lbs then they will have to weigh 280. Someone can check my math here but just thought I would put some numbers with it to give a little perspective.[/quote]
I really don’t understand this post. I mean, really.
I know guys with way better genetics than me so while I agree that being able to do that isn’t something everyone can do by any means, making it sound like it is “next to impossible” doesn’t make sense to me. You basically just described what I have written here over and over.
The truth is, some guy at nearly 260 is still going to look impressive even if he is 20% body fat.
[quote]Caltene wrote:
This thread has exceeded it’s LIMITS.[/quote]
Yeah but dont worry, X has started a new one on the much the same topic so alls well
[quote]Caltene wrote:
This thread has exceeded it’s LIMITS.[/quote]
Yeah but dont worry, X has started a new one on the much the same topic so alls well[/quote]
And the original post in that new thread could just as easily been posted here. Now he can argue the same thing in two threads at once!
[quote]Caltene wrote:
This thread has exceeded it’s LIMITS.[/quote]
Yeah but dont worry, X has started a new one on the much the same topic so alls well[/quote]
And the original post in that new thread could just as easily been posted here. Now he can argue the same thing in two threads at once!
Yay![/quote]
But sadly like he says himself “I haven’t even posted on this site that much lately” so chances of talking to him about it are slim to say the least but thats not to put a limit on it
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really? You do? This is about his SPECIFIC LIMITS, not whether I think that most people can do this or not.
He is literally giving very specific limits and claiming no one can do better than that.
THAT is what I take issue with, not the concept that many natural competitors may show what “most people” can do.[/quote]
So aside from the fact that Brick has repeatedly stated that he’s only basing his perception on what he and others who have studied the sport have witnessed, nothing more than that, you still keep screaming about how he himself established this magical insurmountable wall. Again, this is despite the fact that all he as said is that he knows of no one who has done so within certain criteria, and so far, a lot of people still keep asking for even one example of someone who would disprove this. All they get is you screaming about Kingbeef (who either chooses not to get involved in the thread, or else we can now possibly count him as one of the many useful folks who have departed the site).
You also take issue with the fact that Brick believes this. Really? You’re admitting to the fact that someone else’s opinions are what you take issue with? Because there have been many times over the years where other posters have taken issues with each others’ thinking, and no one went around starting thread after thread, all basically leading into the same argument no matter the different titles.
No one is stopping you from asking questions, but as you obviously don’t like the answers you’re getting, all you seem to be doing is creating the mess that seems to be T-Nation for a while now.
And if you think people treat you the way they do simply because they “like Brick as a person”, then you’ve got bigger issues than if someone can gain 80 lbs of LBM without assistance of not.
Do I agree? I agree that I have yet to see someone who has truthfully packed on noticeable LBM after a certain point (not going to lock it down to 10 years, but after a point). Yes, the body composition can continue to shift slightly (very slightly), but IMO, it’s more a matter of dieting and conditioning than truly packing on muscle. I base this simply on observing people just as Brick has. Not guys in the gym who all seem to get larger with age, but the top natural competitors who keep training and competing to the best of the abilities because their livelihood depends on their placings and visibility. Who but people in this situation are going to be willing to diet down to comparable bodyfat levels year after year, allowing for suitable assessment of improvements.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Really? You do? This is about his SPECIFIC LIMITS, not whether I think that most people can do this or not.
He is literally giving very specific limits and claiming no one can do better than that.
THAT is what I take issue with, not the concept that many natural competitors may show what “most people” can do.[/quote]
So aside from the fact that Brick has repeatedly stated that he’s only basing his perception on what he and others who have studied the sport have witnessed, nothing more than that, you still keep screaming about how he himself established this magical insurmountable wall. Again, this is despite the fact that all he as said is that he knows of no one who has done so within certain criteria, and so far, a lot of people still keep asking for even one example of someone who would disprove this. All they get is you screaming about Kingbeef (who either chooses not to get involved in the thread, or else we can now possibly count him as one of the many useful folks who have departed the site).
You also take issue with the fact that Brick believes this. Really? You’re admitting to the fact that someone else’s opinions are what you take issue with? Because there have been many times over the years where other posters have taken issues with each others’ thinking, and no one went around starting thread after thread, all basically leading into the same argument no matter the different titles.
No one is stopping you from asking questions, but as you obviously don’t like the answers you’re getting, all you seem to be doing is creating the mess that seems to be T-Nation for a while now.
And if you think people treat you the way they do simply because they “like Brick as a person”, then you’ve got bigger issues than if someone can gain 80 lbs of LBM without assistance of not.
Do I agree? I agree that I have yet to see someone who has truthfully packed on noticeable LBM after a certain point (not going to lock it down to 10 years, but after a point). Yes, the body composition can continue to shift slightly (very slightly), but IMO, it’s more a matter of dieting and conditioning than truly packing on muscle. I base this simply on observing people just as Brick has. Not guys in the gym who all seem to get larger with age, but the top natural competitors who keep training and competing to the best of the abilities because their livelihood depends on their placings and visibility. Who but people in this situation are going to be willing to diet down to comparable bodyfat levels year after year, allowing for suitable assessment of improvements.
S[/quote]
Eloquent post that will be ignored…because it is 100% correct.
So aside from the fact that Brick has repeatedly stated that he’s only basing his perception on what he and others who have studied the sport have witnessed, nothing more than that, you still keep screaming about how he himself established this magical insurmountable wall.[/quote]
I didn’t say he himself. I asked where he is getting the numbers from. Neither you nor he has answered this question with more than names of people said to be “rational”.
[quote]
You also take issue with the fact that Brick believes this. Really? [/quote]
I don’t care what Brick believes personally.
[quote]
No one is stopping you from asking questions, but as you obviously don’t like the answers you’re getting, all you seem to be doing is creating the mess that seems to be T-Nation for a while now.[/quote]
I asked a very specific question that you had not answered. Do you agree with his specific limit? What do you base that on? I asked that because as was stated, it is doubtful most natural competitors started training after the age of full maturation so using that to form a limit is baseless.
[quote]
I agree that I have yet to see someone who has truthfully packed on noticeable LBM after a certain point (not going to lock it down to 10 years, but after a point). [/quote]
The issue was that someone WAS locking down a specific ten year limit and the fact that I have seen people gain after that mark.
[quote]
Not guys in the gym who all seem to get larger with age, but the top natural competitors who keep training and competing to the best of the abilities because their livelihood depends on their placings and visibility. Who but people in this situation are going to be willing to diet down to comparable bodyfat levels year after year, allowing for suitable assessment of improvements.
S[/quote]
Why is dieting down to the same body fat levels necessary if most people here will never compete?
Geez your a one-trick pony. Every rebuttal you make is the exact same words.
With regards to “competing or not” read the last 6 words in Stu’s post. There’s your answer. Though we all know you saw it and are just reciting the same questions to avoid actually addressing the fact you’ve been answered more times than I can count.
Keep trying to reframe the discussion, though. It’s about all you can do at this point.
Not guys in the gym who all seem to get larger with age, but the top natural competitors who keep training and competing to the best of the abilities because their livelihood depends on their placings and visibility. Who but people in this situation are going to be willing to diet down to comparable bodyfat levels year after year, allowing for suitable assessment of improvements.
S[/quote]
Why is dieting down to the same body fat levels necessary if most people here will never compete?[/quote]
It isn’t about contest shape, its about having a comparable bodyfat percentage to assess LBM gains.