[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Where is this “40-50lbs” coming from?
[/quote]
I already answered this so many times. [/quote]
Yeah, the problem is, you haven’t it answered it in a way that justifies it.
Since there is no way to tell how much “dry muscle weight” someone has without killing them first, where are you getting this number from?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why make up a number like this?
[/quote]
Because the topic of how much muscle can be gained as a natural is a popular one and I’ve joined in on the conversation, just as others have all over the internet on so many websites.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Why make up a number like this?
[/quote]
Because the topic of how much muscle can be gained as a natural is a popular one and I’ve joined in on the conversation, just as others have all over the internet on so many websites. [/quote]
But…you are making the number up if it has no basis in science at all.
I mean, I know that the only way to tell dry muscle weight is to weight a cadaver’s dried out muscle tissue separate from the body.
That would mean you pulled this number out of thin air.
X, I actually think you can get to your lean goals faster if you were to make some adjustments in your approach and perhaps break previous LIMITS, because after analyzing your approach, I believe you’re limiting yourself. Not kidding.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
X, I actually think you can get to your lean goals faster if you were to make some adjustments in your approach and perhaps break previous LIMITS, because after analyzing your approach, I believe you’re limiting yourself. Not kidding. [/quote]
My approach was inspired by CT and personal instruction. What makes you think I am limiting myself exactly?
I think you missed this one:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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]
What are you doing for legs now?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
What are you doing for legs now? [/quote]
Leg press mostly due to injuries. I also do the machine squat. My leg work is limited to the recovery of my knees.
Also, Brick, you seem to be shifting the discussion from where these numbers are coming from to what I do for training. I am not sure why, but maybe you can start a new thread about that and stay on topic here?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, Brick, you seem to be shifting the discussion from where these numbers are coming from to what I do for training. I am not sure why, but maybe you can start a new thread about that and stay on topic here?[/quote]
OK, true. But my estimation stays as it is. I think at this point we just see this matter very differently, just like we see muscle maintenance differently. Like (I could be wrong), you SEEM to imply, that any bumping up of the ante with training or nutrition carries this high probability of muscle loss, while I don’t, at least no a significant risk unless someone wore themselves into the ground or just lied around all day (which rehab doesn’t entail). Even if you didn’t for a day or two, muscle mass isn’t lost. See, we see it differently.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Like (I could be wrong), you SEEM to imply, that any bumping up of the ante with training or nutrition carries this high probability of muscle loss, while I don’t, at least no a significant risk unless someone wore themselves into the ground or just lied around all day (which rehab doesn’t entail). Even if you didn’t for a day or two, muscle mass isn’t lost. See, we see it differently. [/quote]
I am not sure what this is even referring to.
Simply put, ONE, you don’t have any basis to support this “40-50lbs” since it represents something no one will know until you die and someone cuts you into small pieces and weighs them.
TWO, we do know that you can calculate LEAN BODY MASS AND FFM.
THREE, whether you cling to that idea or not, telling people this “40-50lbs” has no basis in science so giving this idea to newbs is bad science.
FOUR, since most of the people looked at in the past were mostly of only ONE ethnic group, it is very poor indicator of what the rest of the world is capable of.
What you stated above about nutrition and training leading to more muscle mass lost has nothing to do with anything I have written or implied at any stage whatsoever.
Simply put, I started this thread because of the “bad science” being dealt out without regard as people cheered that on because of who is most popular.
Bad science doesn’t help us.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Like (I could be wrong), you SEEM to imply, that any bumping up of the ante with training or nutrition carries this high probability of muscle loss, while I don’t, at least no a significant risk unless someone wore themselves into the ground or just lied around all day (which rehab doesn’t entail). Even if you didn’t for a day or two, muscle mass isn’t lost. See, we see it differently. [/quote]
I am not sure what this is even referring to.
Simply put, ONE, you don’t have any basis to support this “40-50lbs” since it represents something no one will know until you die and someone cuts you into small pieces and weighs them.
TWO, we do know that you can calculate LEAN BODY MASS AND FFM.
THREE, whether you cling to that idea or not, telling people this “40-50lbs” has no basis in science so giving this idea to newbs is bad science.
FOUR, since most of the people looked at in the past were mostly of only ONE ethnic group, it is very poor indicator of what the rest of the world is capable of.
What you stated above about nutrition and training leading to more muscle mass lost has nothing to do with anything I have written or implied at any stage whatsoever.
Simply put, I started this thread because of the “bad science” being dealt out without regard as people cheered that on because of who is most popular.
Bad science doesn’t help us.[/quote]
So I guess Dr. Lonnie Lowery and Dr. Layne Norton are bad scientists. CT also said numerous times that 1/4 to 1/2 pound dry muscle can be gained per week. What should we all do, me and these incompetent scientists, to make stuff better for us?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What you stated above about nutrition and training leading to more muscle mass lost has nothing to do with anything I have written or implied at any stage whatsoever.
[/quote]
I thought it did because you imply that a high bodyfat needs to be maintained in order to preserve muscle mass and that any aggressive shift in nutrition or training holds high risk for muscle mass loss. I read your Mutant log.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
So I guess Dr. Lonnie Lowery and Dr. Layne Norton are bad scientists. CT also said numerous times that 1/4 to 1/2 pound dry muscle can be gained per week. What should we all do, me and these incompetent scientists, to make stuff better for us?
[/quote]
CT isn’t a scientist. You would have to present quotes of the names you are dropping to make it relevant to this discussion.
I don’t debate “names”. I debate ideologies and concepts. Present their quotes that support what you have said about something no one could know without dying and then we can discuss it.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What you stated above about nutrition and training leading to more muscle mass lost has nothing to do with anything I have written or implied at any stage whatsoever.
[/quote]
I thought it did because you imply that a high bodyfat needs to be maintained in order to preserve muscle mass and that any aggressive shift in nutrition or training holds high risk for muscle mass loss. I read your Mutant log. [/quote]
? I have never written that a high body fat is needed to preserve muscle mass. Please correct your assumption if that is what you thought.
That is why you should stick to actual quotes.
It makes no sense at all to state that a high body fat is needed to preserve muscle mass.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Like (I could be wrong), you SEEM to imply, that any bumping up of the ante with training or nutrition carries this high probability of muscle loss, while I don’t, at least no a significant risk unless someone wore themselves into the ground or just lied around all day (which rehab doesn’t entail). Even if you didn’t for a day or two, muscle mass isn’t lost. See, we see it differently. [/quote]
I am not sure what this is even referring to.
Simply put, ONE, you don’t have any basis to support this “40-50lbs” since it represents something no one will know until you die and someone cuts you into small pieces and weighs them.
TWO, we do know that you can calculate LEAN BODY MASS AND FFM.
THREE, whether you cling to that idea or not, telling people this “40-50lbs” has no basis in science so giving this idea to newbs is bad science.
FOUR, since most of the people looked at in the past were mostly of only ONE ethnic group, it is very poor indicator of what the rest of the world is capable of.
What you stated above about nutrition and training leading to more muscle mass lost has nothing to do with anything I have written or implied at any stage whatsoever.
Simply put, I started this thread because of the “bad science” being dealt out without regard as people cheered that on because of who is most popular.
Bad science doesn’t help us.[/quote]
So I guess Dr. Lonnie Lowery and Dr. Layne Norton are bad scientists. CT also said numerous times that 1/4 to 1/2 pound dry muscle can be gained per week. What should we all do, me and these incompetent scientists, to make stuff better for us?
[/quote]
how are you a scientist again?
i guess a degree in nutrition makes you an expert on muscle biology
you keep posting about a 50 lb limit with no evidence of it, then link 250-300 lb steroided out bodybuilders as if it’s related
i’m sorry but posting pictures of bodybuilders and your 50 lb garbage wouldn’t earn you a PHD from a reputable university
you would actually need to write a paper with a proof in it, as to why the human body cannot gain more than 50 lbs of muscle
all that you post is pseudo/bro science, and try to back it up by telling people you have a nutrition degree, discuss?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What you stated above about nutrition and training leading to more muscle mass lost has nothing to do with anything I have written or implied at any stage whatsoever.
[/quote]
I thought it did because you imply that a high bodyfat needs to be maintained in order to preserve muscle mass and that any aggressive shift in nutrition or training holds high risk for muscle mass loss. I read your Mutant log. [/quote]
Can you please post the quote that I wrote somewhere that implies that a high body fat is needed to preserve muscle mass?
You state you read my mutant log. Please post the quote from it that made you think this.
[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Like (I could be wrong), you SEEM to imply, that any bumping up of the ante with training or nutrition carries this high probability of muscle loss, while I don’t, at least no a significant risk unless someone wore themselves into the ground or just lied around all day (which rehab doesn’t entail). Even if you didn’t for a day or two, muscle mass isn’t lost. See, we see it differently. [/quote]
I am not sure what this is even referring to.
Simply put, ONE, you don’t have any basis to support this “40-50lbs” since it represents something no one will know until you die and someone cuts you into small pieces and weighs them.
TWO, we do know that you can calculate LEAN BODY MASS AND FFM.
THREE, whether you cling to that idea or not, telling people this “40-50lbs” has no basis in science so giving this idea to newbs is bad science.
FOUR, since most of the people looked at in the past were mostly of only ONE ethnic group, it is very poor indicator of what the rest of the world is capable of.
What you stated above about nutrition and training leading to more muscle mass lost has nothing to do with anything I have written or implied at any stage whatsoever.
Simply put, I started this thread because of the “bad science” being dealt out without regard as people cheered that on because of who is most popular.
Bad science doesn’t help us.[/quote]
So I guess Dr. Lonnie Lowery and Dr. Layne Norton are bad scientists. CT also said numerous times that 1/4 to 1/2 pound dry muscle can be gained per week. What should we all do, me and these incompetent scientists, to make stuff better for us?
[/quote]
how are you a scientist again?
i guess a degree in nutrition makes you an expert on muscle biology
you keep posting about a 50 lb limit with no evidence of it, then link 250-300 lb steroided out bodybuilders as if it’s related
i’m sorry but posting pictures of bodybuilders and your 50 lb garbage wouldn’t earn you a PHD from a reputable university
you would actually need to write a paper with a proof in it, as to why the human body cannot gain more than 50 lbs of muscle
all that you post is pseudo/bro science, and try to back it up by telling people you have a nutrition degree, discuss?
[/quote]
Where did I say I’m a scientist?
[quote]marshaldteach wrote:
i’m sorry but posting pictures of bodybuilders and your 50 lb garbage wouldn’t earn you a PHD from a reputable university
you would actually need to write a paper with a proof in it, as to why the human body cannot gain more than 50 lbs of muscle
all that you post is pseudo/bro science, and try to back it up by telling people you have a nutrition degree, discuss?
[/quote]
I already told you I don’t even bother talking about academic credentials much, especially my own.
Yeah, tell me about it. I can’t see any academic activity in a Phd program involving posting on forums.
Please tell me where I continually talk about my degree in nutrition to dicuss gains in bodybuilding, considering one doesn’t need a degree to make sensible estimations?
By the way, I don’t work as a scientist but both of my degrees are science degrees.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
So I guess Dr. Lonnie Lowery and Dr. Layne Norton are bad scientists. CT also said numerous times that 1/4 to 1/2 pound dry muscle can be gained per week. What should we all do, me and these incompetent scientists, to make stuff better for us?
[/quote]
CT isn’t a scientist. You would have to present quotes of the names you are dropping to make it relevant to this discussion.
I don’t debate “names”. I debate ideologies and concepts. Present their quotes that support what you have said about something no one could know without dying and then we can discuss it.[/quote]
Where did I say he was. Layne Norton and Lonnie Lowery have science Phds. Lowery works as a scientist as well.