[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Eating a meal before a picture doesn’t affect fatness or leanness, at least not visually. [/quote]
Yeah, that would be false. My belly is sticking out to that degree because of the large pizza and wings I ate right before.
I posted another pic taken the same day with less affect.
They do the same in before and after pics for ads.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding_indigo_2/professor_x_mutant_log
If you want to look through a bunch of pics see above. BUT… i’ll just leave this here. Not sure if this is the “doubtful” over 25%, cause it looks like doubtful under 30%.[/quote]
That isn’t the pic of me at 285lbs. That was AFTER the motorcycle accident when I also lost muscle. I also ate right before that picture and stated as such when it was first posted.
[/quote]
loll remember when you took weight gainer and it prevented you from losing muscle???
[/quote]
Yep…because it did. That is why after an accident like that, I look like I do in my avatar now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
There is no way at all for you to be able to tell exactly how much lean body mass someone has is actual dry muscle tissue. Your muscles are mostly water to start with and a contest depleted states are transitory.
We can calculate lean body mass, not the exact amount of dry muscle tissue without someone dying first.
[/quote]
Hence the concept of estimation.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
X, what’s your plan of attack to get down to 220, lean, with diet and training? What kind of dietary approach will you be taking? Cardio?[/quote]
I feel like this is an honest legitimate question. But it will be taken as an attack or not addressed, or both. [/quote]
Why is that an attack? I am doing more cardio and training like I have written in several threads. I don’t have to do much to my diet to lose body fat. What exactly was expected? I won’t be listing any specific ratios of macronutrients because I don’t do things that way.[/quote]
How do you do them? That was the question. [/quote]
I estimate and make small changes with what I am eating already.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
If you don’t count ratios, do you at least count nutrients per pound of bodyweight? How do you make adjustments if you do not count anything? At your bodyfat level, you can likely get away with “eating less”. However, that doesn’t continue unduly if you don’t start counting at some point to make proper adjustments. [/quote]
I have been doing this long enough to not need a calculator to understand minor dietary changes.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding_indigo_2/professor_x_mutant_log
If you want to look through a bunch of pics see above. BUT… i’ll just leave this here. Not sure if this is the “doubtful” over 25%, cause it looks like doubtful under 30%.[/quote]
That isn’t the pic of me at 285lbs. That was AFTER the motorcycle accident when I also lost muscle. I also ate right before that picture and stated as such when it was first posted.
[/quote]
loll remember when you took weight gainer and it prevented you from losing muscle???
[/quote]
Yep…because it did. That is why after an accident like that, I look like I do in my avatar now.[/quote]
When someone is carrying a relatively high amount of bodyfat, the fat alone is muscle sparing, which is probably why one wouldn’t understand the need for a weight gainer or high caloric intake to preserve muscle, especially in times of low activity or rehab.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
OK, where are THEY getting these specific numbers from? Who was looked at and does this group represent every ethnic group?
[quote]
I don’t know.[/quote]
That’s the problem.
If you are saying that this is the amount of muscle someone can gain after full maturation, then knowing if the group you are looking at started training after full maturation is extremely important to know.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
There is no way at all for you to be able to tell exactly how much lean body mass someone has is actual dry muscle tissue. Your muscles are mostly water to start with and a contest depleted states are transitory.
We can calculate lean body mass, not the exact amount of dry muscle tissue without someone dying first.
[/quote]
Hence the concept of estimation.
[/quote]
? You can’t “estimate” how much dry muscle weight someone has because dry muscle weight is only around 22% of total muscle weight in a healthy person.
I have posted this abstract so many times and you haven’t taken notice.
Kouri EM, et. al.Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clin J Sport Med. (1995) 5(4):223-8.
We calculated fat-free mass index (FFMI) in a sample of 157 male athletes, comprising 83 users of anabolic-androgenic steroids and 74 nonusers. FFMI is defined by the formula (fat-free body mass in kg) x (height in meters)-2. We then added a slight correction of 6.3 x (1.80 m ? height) to normalize these values to the height of a 1.8-m man. The normalized FFMI values of athletes who had not used steroids extended up to a well-defined limit of 25.0. Similarly, a sample of 20 Mr. America winners from the presteroid era (1939-1959), for whom we estimated the normalized FFMI, had a mean FFMI of 25.4. By contrast, the FFMI of many of the steroid users in our sample easily exceeded 25.0, and that of some even exceeded 30. Thus, although these findings must be regarded as preliminary, it appears that FFMI may represent a useful initial measure to screen for possible steroid abuse, especially in athletic, medical, or forensic situations in which individuals may attempt to deny such behavior.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding_indigo_2/professor_x_mutant_log
If you want to look through a bunch of pics see above. BUT… i’ll just leave this here. Not sure if this is the “doubtful” over 25%, cause it looks like doubtful under 30%.[/quote]
That isn’t the pic of me at 285lbs. That was AFTER the motorcycle accident when I also lost muscle. I also ate right before that picture and stated as such when it was first posted.
[/quote]
loll remember when you took weight gainer and it prevented you from losing muscle???
[/quote]
Yep…because it did. That is why after an accident like that, I look like I do in my avatar now.[/quote]
When someone is carrying a relatively high amount of bodyfat, the fat alone is muscle sparing, which is probably why one wouldn’t understand the need for a weight gainer or high caloric intake to preserve muscle, especially in times of low activity or rehab.
[/quote]
The goal was to make sure my body maintained a weight set point because I wanted to see if this affected the amount of muscle lost during a period of extreme rehab and reduced activity.
It worked.
I am not sure what you are having an issue with.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I have posted this abstract so many times and you haven’t taken notice.
Kouri EM, et. al.Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clin J Sport Med. (1995) 5(4):223-8.
We calculated fat-free mass index (FFMI) in a sample of 157 male athletes, comprising 83 users of anabolic-androgenic steroids and 74 nonusers. FFMI is defined by the formula (fat-free body mass in kg) x (height in meters)-2. We then added a slight correction of 6.3 x (1.80 m ? height) to normalize these values to the height of a 1.8-m man. The normalized FFMI values of athletes who had not used steroids extended up to a well-defined limit of 25.0. Similarly, a sample of 20 Mr. America winners from the presteroid era (1939-1959), for whom we estimated the normalized FFMI, had a mean FFMI of 25.4. By contrast, the FFMI of many of the steroid users in our sample easily exceeded 25.0, and that of some even exceeded 30. Thus, although these findings must be regarded as preliminary, it appears that FFMI may represent a useful initial measure to screen for possible steroid abuse, especially in athletic, medical, or forensic situations in which individuals may attempt to deny such behavior.[/quote]
Does this 157 athletes represent all ethnic groups?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
I have posted this abstract so many times and you haven’t taken notice.
Kouri EM, et. al.Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clin J Sport Med. (1995) 5(4):223-8.
We calculated fat-free mass index (FFMI) in a sample of 157 male athletes, comprising 83 users of anabolic-androgenic steroids and 74 nonusers. FFMI is defined by the formula (fat-free body mass in kg) x (height in meters)-2. We then added a slight correction of 6.3 x (1.80 m ? height) to normalize these values to the height of a 1.8-m man. The normalized FFMI values of athletes who had not used steroids extended up to a well-defined limit of 25.0. Similarly, a sample of 20 Mr. America winners from the presteroid era (1939-1959), for whom we estimated the normalized FFMI, had a mean FFMI of 25.4. By contrast, the FFMI of many of the steroid users in our sample easily exceeded 25.0, and that of some even exceeded 30. Thus, although these findings must be regarded as preliminary, it appears that FFMI may represent a useful initial measure to screen for possible steroid abuse, especially in athletic, medical, or forensic situations in which individuals may attempt to deny such behavior.[/quote]
Does this 157 athletes represent all ethnic groups?
[/quote]
It didn’t say so. Anyway, I have no doubt there are differences between ethnic groups in average musculature, but I do doubt there is some outrageous difference, noticeable difference amongst the more hardy people within the groups, especially those in high level competitive bodybuilding.
That’s an opinion by the way.
Considering the years of that contest, most likely all those subjects were white.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
It didn’t say so. Anyway, I have no doubt there are differences between ethnic groups in average musculature, but I do doubt there is some outrageous difference, noticeable difference amongst the more hardy people within the groups, especially those in high level competitive bodybuilding.
That’s an opinion by the way. [/quote]
But, Casey Butt even admitted that his averages may not adhere to some people of African descent due to more average muscle mass…so why ignore that it is likely that most Mr. America winners were of the same ethnic group?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Considering the years of that contest, most likely all those subjects were white. [/quote]
Thank you. That is one of the points I have been trying to make for months but actually having a discussion with you without several people jumping in is difficult.
It is doubtful most of the people looked at started training after the age of full maturation.
It is doubtful that any other ethnic groups were looked at in detail at all.
These are issues that you can’t breeze by when telling people what all naturals have done…because we have no clue what all natural can do because competing itself lends itself to people who have the means to support the lifestyle…which means most of the people who could afford to do that in the 50’s and 60’s were WHITE and were not examples of any other significant ethnic groups.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[/quote]
At this point I forget which thread, but I posted about why this doesn’t matter.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
It didn’t say so. Anyway, I have no doubt there are differences between ethnic groups in average musculature, but I do doubt there is some outrageous difference, noticeable difference amongst the more hardy people within the groups, especially those in high level competitive bodybuilding.
That’s an opinion by the way. [/quote]
But, Casey Butt even admitted that his averages may not adhere to some people of African descent due to more average muscle mass…so why ignore that it is likely that most Mr. America winners were of the same ethnic group?[/quote]
Because I believe that although some racial group might have some predisposition to building more muscle mass it’s likely not significant.
To put it simply–though probably a crude way–I doubt that a race can surpass the expected 40 to 50 pound estimation by much, say some outrageous ability to build 60 to 80 pounds of muscle (or more). Though I’m not a racial anthropologist, I think probably from what I’ve learned, the Nordic sub race of the white race (Dorian Yates, Jason Cutler, Marcus Ruhl, Dennis Wolf being examples) and West Africans are the most heavily muscled and larger boned.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[/quote]
At this point I forget which thread, but I posted about why this doesn’t matter. [/quote]
If the claim is that no one can gain more than a certain amount after full maturation, then whether the people looked at to form that idea started after that age is of SUPREME importance.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Because I believe that although some racial group might have some predisposition to building more muscle mass it’s likely not significant. [/quote]
This isn’t science. You assume quite a bit with this statement.
I have mentioned before that I have seen many people of Nigerian descent who upon first walk in the gym put many people to shame who have trained for years.
I would say that it is very significant because it hasn’t even been looked at in detail in science with regards to building large amounts of muscle mass.
Why would you assume something like this is insignificant?
[quote]
To put it simply–though probably a crude way–I doubt that a race can surpass the expected 40 to 50 pound estimation by much, say some outrageous ability to build 60 to 80 pounds of muscle (or more). Though I’m not a racial anthropologist, I think probably from what I’ve learned, the Nordic sub race of the white race (Dorian Yates, Jason Cutler, Marcus Ruhl, Dennis Wolf being examples) and West Africans are the most heavily muscled and larger boned. [/quote]
Where is this “40-50lbs” coming from?
Once again, you can NOT judge how much dry muscle weight someone has in any way at all without that person dying first.
Why make up a number like this?
The only thing you can accurately calculate is lean body mass or FFM.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Where is this “40-50lbs” coming from?
[/quote]
I already answered this so many times.