LIMITS

Training
581

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
think about it. your a doctor, biologist, geneticist, super awesome at everything-ist…you will get it eventually. [/quote]

I need you, the person implying that you have more insight into an area than I do, to explain to me what you mean.

I have dieted many times in my life. I have dropped weight right here and posted the pictures for it.

I am leaning up right now.

So, again, why make that “note” to me?

What did you mean?

I am not “super awesome at everything”. There are many things I straight up suck at…but one on one debate isn’t usually one of them.

582

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
think about it. your a doctor, biologist, geneticist, super awesome at everything-ist…you will get it eventually. [/quote]

Visual bodyfat expert-ist[/quote]

haha i could make a long and well thought out post, but it would be squashed by his “rules” of internet debating, so why bother,

x, you will just have to take my opinions like a bitch, until i am banned from the site or you put me on ignore. just like everybody else who is tired of your act.

hugs.

583

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
think about it. your a doctor, biologist, geneticist, super awesome at everything-ist…you will get it eventually. [/quote]

There are many things I straight up suck at…but one on one debate isn’t usually one of them.[/quote]

Yep…you are undefeated, in your own mind.

584

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
think about it. your a doctor, biologist, geneticist, super awesome at everything-ist…you will get it eventually. [/quote]

I need you, the person implying that you have more insight into an area than I do, to explain to me what you mean.

I have dieted many times in my life. I have dropped weight right here and posted the pictures for it.

I am leaning up right now.

So, again, why make that “note” to me?

What did you mean?

I am not “super awesome at everything”. There are many things I straight up suck at…but one on one debate isn’t usually one of them.[/quote]

ok, ill play, like i said, i am just glad you have not put me on ignore yet…

you have a drastically inflated idea of how much bodyfat you are carrying at your current size, and how lean you really are. look at my avatar pic,…that was me at 225-230

i am 20 plus lbs smaller now, and do not look lean yet.

i think unless you commit to this process it is easy to overestimate your actual body composition

hows that?

change your mind?
NO?

damn! another person who will not admit they are wrong on the internet… ARRRRRRGGGGHHHH! how will the world go on???

585

Pretty hostile 10 minute stretch there. Awesome.

586

haha, “hostile” …

587

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

Having been through the whole journey starting out at 233 last July, it is quite amusing to see how utterly delirious PX is of how light he’d have to be to reach low bodyfat. [/quote]

I am not even trying to compete so I don’t understand what this post is even referring to. This isn’t about dieting down to super low body fat percentages. I can look good at over 10% body fat so what is your point about my delusion? I think I look decent now so why do you think I need to drop so much more weight?[/quote]

Because you insist on using yourself as the one data point against Brick’s claims, yet have no real concept of what 80lbs of MUSCLE really is. You never will, because, as you say, you are content with carrying more bodyfat. If you ever decided to diet down to say 6% bodyfat, you’d realize there’s this thing called WATER that is also a huge part of LBM. So your numbers and qualitative assessment of your body composition literally mean nothing and are delusional. You merely sound like grandpa at the family BBQ talking about how he used to hit balls 600 feet to dead center “back in the day.” No one takes you seriously.

I’m not telling you to compete or lose weight. This is about bad use of the “scientific method” if you will. I teach undergrad physics labs, and students like you who merely look and say “meh, that’s about 30 cm, and I’m only gonna take one measurement,” do not succeed.

588

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

you have a drastically inflated idea of how much bodyfat you are carrying at your current size, and how lean you really are. look at my avatar pic,…that was me at 225-230[/quote]

Uhm, I just had my body fat tested and it was about what I expected it to be. Explain how this makes me have an inflated idea of how much fat I am carrying if I know how much I am carrying?

[quote]

i think unless you commit to this process it is easy to overestimate your actual body composition[/quote]

Commit to the process of leaning up? I have and am doing that…so again, why the note?

[quote]

hows that?

change your mind?
NO?

damn! another person who will not admit they are wrong on the internet… ARRRRRRGGGGHHHH! how will the world go on??? [/quote]

Wrong about what exactly?

589

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

Having been through the whole journey starting out at 233 last July, it is quite amusing to see how utterly delirious PX is of how light he’d have to be to reach low bodyfat. [/quote]

I am not even trying to compete so I don’t understand what this post is even referring to. This isn’t about dieting down to super low body fat percentages. I can look good at over 10% body fat so what is your point about my delusion? I think I look decent now so why do you think I need to drop so much more weight?[/quote]

Because you insist on using yourself as the one data point against Brick’s claims, yet have no real concept of what 80lbs of MUSCLE really is. You never will, because, as you say, you are content with carrying more bodyfat. If you ever decided to diet down to say 6% bodyfat, you’d realize there’s this thing called WATER that is also a huge part of LBM. So your numbers and qualitative assessment of your body composition literally mean nothing and are delusional. You merely sound like grandpa at the family BBQ talking about how he used to hit balls 600 feet to dead center “back in the day.” No one takes you seriously.

I’m not telling you to compete or lose weight. This is about bad use of the “scientific method” if you will. I teach undergrad physics labs, and students like you who merely look and say “meh, that’s about 30 cm, and I’m only gonna take one measurement,” do not succeed. [/quote]

boom. guess what, this post wont make a dent either, so what makes x think anything i post will make a difference to him either.

his completely super inflated ego and exaggerated sense of self worth are far to fragile to accept any random thought that he might be wrong at anything.

590

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

you have a drastically inflated idea of how much bodyfat you are carrying at your current size, and how lean you really are. look at my avatar pic,…that was me at 225-230[/quote]

Uhm, I just had my body fat tested and it was about what I expected it to be. Explain how this makes me have an inflated idea of how much fat I am carrying if I know how much I am carrying?

[quote]

i think unless you commit to this process it is easy to overestimate your actual body composition[/quote]

Commit to the process of leaning up? I have and am doing that…so again, why the note?

[quote]

hows that?

change your mind?
NO?

damn! another person who will not admit they are wrong on the internet… ARRRRRRGGGGHHHH! how will the world go on??? [/quote]

Wrong about what exactly?[/quote]
everything. please kill yourself. that is the only way out i see for you now. sorry.

i can help you if you want, just ask nicely.

591

I feel leaner already

592

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

Having been through the whole journey starting out at 233 last July, it is quite amusing to see how utterly delirious PX is of how light he’d have to be to reach low bodyfat. [/quote]

I am not even trying to compete so I don’t understand what this post is even referring to. This isn’t about dieting down to super low body fat percentages. I can look good at over 10% body fat so what is your point about my delusion? I think I look decent now so why do you think I need to drop so much more weight?[/quote]

Because you insist on using yourself as the one data point against Brick’s claims, yet have no real concept of what 80lbs of MUSCLE really is. You never will, because, as you say, you are content with carrying more bodyfat. If you ever decided to diet down to say 6% bodyfat, you’d realize there’s this thing called WATER that is also a huge part of LBM. So your numbers and qualitative assessment of your body composition literally mean nothing and are delusional. You merely sound like grandpa at the family BBQ talking about how he used to hit balls 600 feet to dead center “back in the day.” No one takes you seriously.

I’m not telling you to compete or lose weight. This is about bad use of the “scientific method” if you will. I teach undergrad physics labs, and students like you who merely look and say “meh, that’s about 30 cm, and I’m only gonna take one measurement,” do not succeed. [/quote]

boom. guess what, this post wont make a dent either, so what makes x think anything i post will make a difference to him either.

his completely super inflated ego and exaggerated sense of self worth are far to fragile to accept any random thought that he might be wrong at anything.[/quote]

I have faith it will make a dent. Not with PX, but hopefully with the thousands of impressionable newer lifters who read this site. Until you start taking regular measurements and pictures once a week, you’ll never be able to be honest with yourself. And to succeed in this sport, that’s the first step.

593

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

Having been through the whole journey starting out at 233 last July, it is quite amusing to see how utterly delirious PX is of how light he’d have to be to reach low bodyfat. [/quote]

I am not even trying to compete so I don’t understand what this post is even referring to. This isn’t about dieting down to super low body fat percentages. I can look good at over 10% body fat so what is your point about my delusion? I think I look decent now so why do you think I need to drop so much more weight?[/quote]

Because you insist on using yourself as the one data point against Brick’s claims, yet have no real concept of what 80lbs of MUSCLE really is. You never will, because, as you say, you are content with carrying more bodyfat. If you ever decided to diet down to say 6% bodyfat, you’d realize there’s this thing called WATER that is also a huge part of LBM. So your numbers and qualitative assessment of your body composition literally mean nothing and are delusional. You merely sound like grandpa at the family BBQ talking about how he used to hit balls 600 feet to dead center “back in the day.” No one takes you seriously.

I’m not telling you to compete or lose weight. This is about bad use of the “scientific method” if you will. I teach undergrad physics labs, and students like you who merely look and say “meh, that’s about 30 cm, and I’m only gonna take one measurement,” do not succeed. [/quote]

Have we been talking about adding 80-100 lbs of muscle or are we talking lean body mass? I was under the impression it was total lean body mass but if its muscle then that changes “nearly impossible” to “aint gonna happen”

594

[quote]jskrabac wrote:

Because you insist on using yourself as the one data point against Brick’s claims, yet have no real concept of what 80lbs of MUSCLE really is.[/quote]

Wait…explain how I have no concept of it. You make it seem like it is hard to understand what lean body mass is.

[quote]

You never will, because, as you say, you are content with carrying more bodyfat. If you ever decided to diet down to say 6% bodyfat, you’d realize there’s this thing called WATER that is also a huge part of LBM. [/quote]

I know this already. I don’t plan n competing…ever. So why would I ever need to be worried about being 6%?

Look, a contest dieted down state isn’t even healthy to maintain long term, so why set that as a standard when your caliper reading in such a state can change based on water retention?

[quote]
So your numbers and qualitative assessment of your body composition literally mean nothing and are delusional. You merely sound like grandpa at the family BBQ talking about how he used to hit balls 600 feet to dead center “back in the day.” No one takes you seriously.

I’m not telling you to compete or lose weight. This is about bad use of the “scientific method” if you will. I teach undergrad physics labs, and students like you who merely look and say “meh, that’s about 30 cm, and I’m only gonna take one measurement,” do not succeed. [/quote]

This doesn’t make sense. You can calculate lean body mass without someone being in a depleted state…and that doesn’t mean the muscle they are carrying is “fake” is “just water”…since your entire body is mostly water and lean body mass refers to the water in muscle as well.

595

[quote]Apollo1029 wrote:
I feel leaner already[/quote]
your welcome. donations via pay pal are accepted.

596

[quote]Professor X wrote:
There are many things I straight up suck at…but one on one debate isn’t usually one of them.[/quote]

LOL. More self assessment and back-patting. There are many here who would disagree. Your not as good at it as you think.

597

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

Have we been talking about adding 80-100 lbs of muscle or are we talking lean body mass? I was under the impression it was total lean body mass but if its muscle then that changes “nearly impossible” to “aint gonna happen” [/quote]

I have stated lean body mass from the beginning. There would be no way to know exactly how much dry weight was muscle without autopsy.

598

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

Have we been talking about adding 80-100 lbs of muscle or are we talking lean body mass? I was under the impression it was total lean body mass but if its muscle then that changes “nearly impossible” to “aint gonna happen” [/quote]

The original post that X busted a nut over said muscle, not LBM.

599

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]bpick86 wrote:

Have we been talking about adding 80-100 lbs of muscle or are we talking lean body mass? I was under the impression it was total lean body mass but if its muscle then that changes “nearly impossible” to “aint gonna happen” [/quote]

The original post that X busted a nut over said muscle, not LBM.[/quote]

There would be no way for anyone to know how much DRY WEIGHT was muscle in someone without literally cutting them open.

It is assumed that “muscle” means “lean body mass”.

600

also as a side not, just because somebody is better at arguing, does not mean they are right… lol, i learned this a long time ago.