[quote]heavythrower wrote:
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. [/quote]
But, if someone can’t even debate the points someone is making and in turn chooses to go to personal insults, it usually means that person does not have a stance they can defend.
[quote]bpick86 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]
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]
Yep, muscle.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]bpick86 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]
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]
Yep, muscle. [/quote]
?? This doesn’t make sense even from a discussion standpoint.
You can determine lean body mass in someone without killing them.
You CAN NOT determine the dry weight of muscle they carry without killing them.
It would be pointless discussing how much “dry weight” someone gained.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
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. [/quote]
But, if someone can’t even debate the points someone is making and in turn chooses to go to personal insults, it usually means that person does not have a stance they can defend.[/quote]
In the last shitstorm thread Super Sayian listed an entire post that documented about 30 of your best insults leveled at other posters…so basically you don’t have a defendable stance?
That’s using your logic of course.
You would have to cut someone open, dry out their muscle mass, dissect them and weigh the muscle to determine how much was truly dry weight.
No underwater weighing on planet Earth does this.
That is why people discuss LEAN BODY MASS and not dry muscle weight.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No underwater weighing on planet Earth does this.
[/quote]
But it does give a VERY accurate bodyfat reading.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Ah, that’s a very good point. You have changed my mind now…about everything.
Carry on.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
No underwater weighing on planet Earth does this.
[/quote]
But it does give a VERY accurate bodyfat reading.
[/quote]
That isn’t what is being discussed.
It was said that they are talking about 80lbs of DRY MUSCLE WEIGHT. We wouldn’t be able to tell that at all without killing someone.
Underwater weighing determines LEAN BODY MASS not dry muscle weight.
You know your spinning your wheels when you start arguing over what you are arguing about. But pure muscle is not really possible with the improbable exception that someone like a Dwight Howard type starts seriously bodybuilding. LBM is not impossible, but not likely, but there a lot more factors contributing to that than just muscle.
hahahaha, there are many posters here that are much smarter and more accomplished than I who have posted pages of well thought out point to point responses to your bullshit, yet that does not make a dent in your huge over inflated ego you perpetrate while safe behind a keyboard on the interwebz.
so i know i would be wasting my time trying to legitimately debate you . so i will continue to fuck with you as it tickles me.
i would LOVE to meet you in person.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Ah, that’s a very good point. You have changed my mind now…about everything.
Carry on. [/quote]
Like I said, none of you seem to be able to defnd your stanec at all.
if you are now arguing that DRY MUSCLE WEIGHT is what is being discussed, I agree, NO HUMAN ON EARTH EXCEPT MAYBE COLEMAN AND GUYS LIKE RUHL OVER 300LBS HAVE EVER GAINED THAT MUCH.
Is that what you are arguing? Dry weight?
WTF?
So you were arguing something none of us could ever know?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You would have to cut someone open, dry out their muscle mass, dissect them and weigh the muscle to determine how much was truly dry weight.
No underwater weighing on planet Earth does this.
That is why people discuss LEAN BODY MASS and not dry muscle weight.[/quote]
Ah, so this is why we’ll never know for sure if any natural lifter ever successfully added 80lbs of dry muscle?
[quote]bpick86 wrote:
You know your spinning your wheels when you start arguing over what you are arguing about. But pure muscle is not really possible with the improbable exception that someone like a Dwight Howard type starts seriously bodybuilding. LBM is not impossible, but not likely, but there a lot more factors contributing to that than just muscle.[/quote]
Agreed…which is why the discussion is about lean body mass.
No one could even determine someone’s dry muscle weight unless they died first.
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
You would have to cut someone open, dry out their muscle mass, dissect them and weigh the muscle to determine how much was truly dry weight.
No underwater weighing on planet Earth does this.
That is why people discuss LEAN BODY MASS and not dry muscle weight.[/quote]
Ah, so this is why we’ll never know for sure if any natural lifter ever successfully added 80lbs of dry muscle? [/quote]
Uh, once again, dry muscle would never be determined at all…so why even discuss it like you would be able to?
My bad, I always thought it was dry muscle weight we’re talking about. Looks like we’re on the same page now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Ah, that’s a very good point. You have changed my mind now…about everything.
Carry on. [/quote]
Like I said, none of you seem to be able to defnd your stanec at all.
if you are now arguing that DRY MUSCLE WEIGHT is what is being discussed, I agree, NO HUMAN ON EARTH EXCEPT MAYBE COLEMAN AND GUYS LIKE RUHL OVER 300LBS HAVE EVER GAINED THAT MUCH.
Is that what you are arguing? Dry weight?
WTF?
So you were arguing something none of us could ever know?[/quote]
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jskrabac wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Ah, that’s a very good point. You have changed my mind now…about everything.
Carry on. [/quote]
Like I said, none of you seem to be able to defnd your stanec at all.
if you are now arguing that DRY MUSCLE WEIGHT is what is being discussed, I agree, NO HUMAN ON EARTH EXCEPT MAYBE COLEMAN AND GUYS LIKE RUHL OVER 300LBS HAVE EVER GAINED THAT MUCH.
Is that what you are arguing? Dry weight?
WTF?
So you were arguing something none of us could ever know?[/quote]
[/quote]
red crayon dammit!
Only one person said dry muscle weight.
Bricks original point was 80lbs of muscle/lean body mass.
No need to move the goalposts.
So have has there been a 25 page argument over a misunderstanding?
yes. problem?