X, as long as you continue to misinterpret my writing here, I won’t speak further. If I do talk, I’ll be equally abrasive as you are, though not as insulting.
Good luck on your way to 220 with that lower body and winging your nutrition and abstinence from any damn real exercises.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Where did I say he was. Layne Norton and Lonnie Lowery have science Phds. Lowery works as a scientist as well. [/quote]
Once again, who these people are does not support how you know how much dry muscle weight someone has.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
X, as long as you continue to misinterpret my writing here, I won’t speak further. If I do talk, I’ll be equally abrasive as you are, though not as insulting.
Good luck on your way to 220 with that lower body and winging your nutrition and abstinence from any damn real exercises. [/quote]
I am not being abrasive. I am also not misinterpreting anything. I am not being insulting at all.
You do, however, seem to be avoiding every direct question asked of you in support of the claim you made.
Why is that?
And marshal, it seems you like talking about my degree more than I do, considering I don’t even bother mentioning it unless necessary, and I’ve continued to state that one doesn’t need a damn degree to be a good bodybuilding coach or nutritionist considering most don’t have degrees in this: Shelby, Stu, Meadows, Skip, Scott Abel, Chad Nichols, Bret Goldfarb, etc.
Continue to talk about degrees. Let us know your progress, marshal, as you make the earth quake below your footsteps with your natural and lean 250 to 300 pound body, in the future.
Well, you, for some reason have driven a tolerant and forgiving guy like me to be thoroughly irritated and in your tyrannical and intolerant way, want to crucify me for having opinions, beliefs, and assumptions and estimations based on reasons the best I see it. You disagree and don’t like my beliefs or reasons. How about settle it at that?!
Maybe I’ll take a cue from you, and be a hostile, intolerant bastard and somehow punish and insult others for believing in things, whether they have basis in fact or not! I’m atheistic, so perhaps I should mentally wear down and insult people who believe in any religious faith involving a diety and all the hocus pocus mythology and tales that are in most religious scripture.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Well, you, for some reason have driven a tolerant and forgiving guy like me to be thoroughly irritated and in your tyrannical and intolerant way, want to crucify me for having opinions, beliefs, and assumptions and estimations based on reasons the best I see it. You disagree and don’t like my beliefs or reasons. How about settle it at that?! [/quote]
Crucify? I asked where the numbers are coming from. You are stating that you know how much dry muscle weight someone can have…which is impossible without autopsy.
I am asking you to explain why you believe what you do. That isn’t crucifying you at all. It isn’t driving you to do anything but support a statement or claim you made.
[quote]
Maybe I’ll take a cue from you, and be a hostile, intolerant bastard and somehow punish and insult others for believing in things, whether they have basis in fact or not! I’m atheistic, so perhaps I should mentally wear down and insult people who believe in any religious faith involving a diety and all the hocus pocus mythology and tales that are in most religious scripture. [/quote]
I haven’t insulted you here. You are claiming you were insulted in this discussion?
You don’t seem to be able to support what you claimed. That isn’t an attack on you but what you have stated is true.
Marshal: Keep mentioning my degree more than I do and literally making shit up (eg, me thinking I’m a scientist because I have a nutrition degree).
But because you keep bringing it up, perhaps I’ll indulge a bit too. What damn life science background do you have? I mean, it only took an irrational, and unreasonable and unanalytic, mentally feebly mind to pass courses such as:
microbiology
chemistry
biochemistry
organic chemistry
research methodology
advanced nutrition metabolism
biostatistics
anatomy and physiology
exercise physiology.
You’re the one bringing it up and literally making shit up about me.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Well, you, for some reason have driven a tolerant and forgiving guy like me to be thoroughly irritated and in your tyrannical and intolerant way, want to crucify me for having opinions, beliefs, and assumptions and estimations based on reasons the best I see it. You disagree and don’t like my beliefs or reasons. How about settle it at that?!
Maybe I’ll take a cue from you, and be a hostile, intolerant bastard and somehow punish and insult others for believing in things, whether they have basis in fact or not! I’m atheistic, so perhaps I should mentally wear down and insult people who believe in any religious faith involving a diety and all the hocus pocus mythology and tales that are in most religious scripture. [/quote]
people can have beliefs
when they preach their beliefs to others as absolute fact is when it gets annoying
you have to ask where the proof is
also, I don’t have a nutrition degree, I have a graduate degree in CS
I understand the difference between what a proof is and what is not
For you to prove there is a 50 lb limit, you would have to provide a biological basis for why you can only gain that much
Or you could study thousands of natural bodybuilders over the course of decades and figure out how much muscle they’ve gained, and say X% of people gained more than Y LBM, etc.
dunno how religious/delusional people are related to this.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
X, as long as you continue to misinterpret my writing here, I won’t speak further. If I do talk, I’ll be equally abrasive as you are, though not as insulting.
Good luck on your way to 220 with that lower body and winging your nutrition and abstinence from any damn real exercises. [/quote]
You are slowly becoming my favorite poster on this site. haha
I agree 100% about the lack of real exercises.
“That isn’t science.”
“I won’t be keeping track of anything with my diet. I just know how my body works.”
Please do quote me.
I am an expert.
I can type the letter X.
Those who agree with x = 12 or less.
Those who agree against = 12 trillions or more(please remember he insist on including all so forgetting planets would be a huge scientific mistake)).
[quote]setto222 wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
For the record, a caliper measurement of someone at a skinny-fat 150 would be pretty accurate, because that’s exactly the type of person that comprises most of the data set that exists for caliper measurements. A muscular 250 lber, not so much. Visceral fat estimations would be way off.
Underwater weighing would be highly accurate if residual long volume was measured, which isn’t hard to do at all. I know this because I’ve done it.[/quote]
How have you measured residual lung volume in the past? I’ve always assumed something along the lines of 15 ml/kg (ish).
(not trying to be a pain, legitimately curious!)[/quote]
Do you mean what apparatus we used to measure it? I can go dig up that lab if you want.
Assuming residual lung volume tends to underestimate BF. Without a measured RLV, my BF at the time measured at 15% via UW weighing. With it, I was 18%. The estimates are based on generally non-active populations and are high. I believe this falsely attributes more of the buoyancy in UW to something other than fat, hence the difference. This was consistent for everyone else involved in that lab. Basically if you were physically active, an estimated RLV would under-estimate your BF.
[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
X, as long as you continue to misinterpret my writing here, I won’t speak further. If I do talk, I’ll be equally abrasive as you are, though not as insulting.
Good luck on your way to 220 with that lower body and winging your nutrition and abstinence from any damn real exercises. [/quote]
You are slowly becoming my favorite poster on this site. haha
I agree 100% about the lack of real exercises.[/quote]
Thanks! 
I’d suggest he actually coax some damn real growth out of his body by doing squats, stiff legged deadlifts, deadlifts, GHR’s, hyperextensions, lunges, and stepups! Every guy with a smoking lower body did these for quite some time, and then only after they reached a great deal of lower body growth or some serious strength (like 400 to 600 pounds depending on who we speak of), then reassessed (if they had to because of unsuitability with their bodies or injuries or preference or maintenance reasons), and then switched over or relied more on hack squats, leg presses, extensions, and so on. If I recall correctly, X says that he doesn’t do any real exercises because of safety, as if he is so strong that walking out of the rack with a bar on his back poses a hazard.
I brought up training and nutrition because I actually DO believe he can get where he wants to go faster and more efficiently and wanted to engage in progressive and positive talk for a change. But who the heck am I–just a regular gymrat guy?
Most of those exercise could possibly lend to new back growth too, especially upper back and thickness.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
X, as long as you continue to misinterpret my writing here, I won’t speak further. If I do talk, I’ll be equally abrasive as you are, though not as insulting.
Good luck on your way to 220 with that lower body and winging your nutrition and abstinence from any damn real exercises. [/quote]
You are slowly becoming my favorite poster on this site. haha
I agree 100% about the lack of real exercises.[/quote]
Thanks!
I’d suggest he actually coax some damn real growth out of his body by doing squats, stiff legged deadlifts, deadlifts, GHR’s, hyperextensions, lunges, and stepups! Every guy with a smoking lower body did these for quite some time, and then only after they reached a great deal of lower body growth or some serious strength (like 400 to 600 pounds depending on who we speak of), then reassessed (if they had to because of unsuitability with their bodies or injuries or preference or maintenance reasons), and then switched over or relied more on hack squats, leg presses, extensions, and so on. If I recall correctly, X says that he doesn’t do any real exercises because of safety, as if he is so strong that walking out of the rack with a bar on his back poses a hazard.
I brought up training and nutrition because I actually DO believe he can get where he wants to go faster and more efficiently and wanted to engage in progressive and positive talk for a change. But who the heck am I–just a regular gymrat guy?
Most of those exercise could possibly lend to new back growth too, especially upper back and thickness. [/quote]
It’s because he’s so strong the amount of weight he would be using is just not worth the risk… lulz
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
X, as long as you continue to misinterpret my writing here, I won’t speak further. If I do talk, I’ll be equally abrasive as you are, though not as insulting.
Good luck on your way to 220 with that lower body and winging your nutrition and abstinence from any damn real exercises. [/quote]
You are slowly becoming my favorite poster on this site. haha
I agree 100% about the lack of real exercises.[/quote]
Thanks!
I’d suggest he actually coax some damn real growth out of his body by doing squats, stiff legged deadlifts, deadlifts, GHR’s, hyperextensions, lunges, and stepups! Every guy with a smoking lower body did these for quite some time, and then only after they reached a great deal of lower body growth or some serious strength (like 400 to 600 pounds depending on who we speak of), then reassessed (if they had to because of unsuitability with their bodies or injuries or preference or maintenance reasons), and then switched over or relied more on hack squats, leg presses, extensions, and so on. If I recall correctly, X says that he doesn’t do any real exercises because of safety, as if he is so strong that walking out of the rack with a bar on his back poses a hazard.
I brought up training and nutrition because I actually DO believe he can get where he wants to go faster and more efficiently and wanted to engage in progressive and positive talk for a change. But who the heck am I–just a regular gymrat guy?
Most of those exercise could possibly lend to new back growth too, especially upper back and thickness. [/quote]
Agree completely, after doing GHR’s religously the last year I’ve seen the most hamstring growth of my life. Just because something is not a traditional “bodybuiding” exercise doesn’t mean it’s not useful for bodybuilding purposes.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
“That isn’t science.”
“I won’t be keeping track of anything with my diet. I just know how my body works.”[/quote]
You seem to misunderstand what I wrote.
Because I don’t keep calculations doesn’t mean I don’t keep track of anything.
How would someone make a lot of progress without keeping track of anything?
I have enough basic knowledge to not need exact calculations because I know how variable the human body is.
Like I have written before, I base what I do on the results I get…which is what science is all about.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Mtag666 wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
X, as long as you continue to misinterpret my writing here, I won’t speak further. If I do talk, I’ll be equally abrasive as you are, though not as insulting.
Good luck on your way to 220 with that lower body and winging your nutrition and abstinence from any damn real exercises. [/quote]
You are slowly becoming my favorite poster on this site. haha
I agree 100% about the lack of real exercises.[/quote]
Thanks!
I’d suggest he actually coax some damn real growth out of his body by doing squats, stiff legged deadlifts, deadlifts, GHR’s, hyperextensions, lunges, and stepups! Every guy with a smoking lower body did these for quite some time, and then only after they reached a great deal of lower body growth or some serious strength (like 400 to 600 pounds depending on who we speak of), then reassessed (if they had to because of unsuitability with their bodies or injuries or preference or maintenance reasons), and then switched over or relied more on hack squats, leg presses, extensions, and so on. If I recall correctly, X says that he doesn’t do any real exercises because of safety, as if he is so strong that walking out of the rack with a bar on his back poses a hazard.
I brought up training and nutrition because I actually DO believe he can get where he wants to go faster and more efficiently and wanted to engage in progressive and positive talk for a change. But who the heck am I–just a regular gymrat guy?
Most of those exercise could possibly lend to new back growth too, especially upper back and thickness. [/quote]
Wow.
I don’t squat because of back injury. My quads aren’t small so I am not sure what you are discussing here.
Real exercises are the exercises that produce results.
I do those.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
If I recall correctly, X says that he doesn’t do any real exercises because of safety, as if he is so strong that walking out of the rack with a bar on his back poses a hazard.
[/quote]
What are “real exercises”? I was in a motorcycle accident. That is why I don’t do squats right now.
It has nothing to do with being so strong that walking out the rack poses an issue…like you seemed to elude to.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
“That isn’t science.”
“I won’t be keeping track of anything with my diet. I just know how my body works.”[/quote]
You seem to misunderstand what I wrote.
Because I don’t keep calculations doesn’t mean I don’t keep track of anything.
How would someone make a lot of progress without keeping track of anything?
I have enough basic knowledge to not need exact calculations because I know how variable the human body is.
Like I have written before, I base what I do on the results I get…which is what science is all about.[/quote]
No one is misunderstanding anything. You admit that you don’t track macros, and you won’t say what you actually do, so of course we’re left to speculate that you don’t actually do anything scientific. What you claim is half-science at best, but then again that pretty much sums up your philosophy until someone disagrees. Then you will call on your extensive “scientific background in biology, genetics, personal training, etc” in an attempt to poke the tiniest hole in anything that you don’t agree with. Intellectual fraud is what the scientific community would call that, brofessor.
I’ll add that it’s easy to do half-assed dieting and go from “fat” to “not so fat.” I did it, and clearly you’ve done it as well. But that doesn’t get you looking like all the other people calling you on your bullshit, and yet you will argue tooth and nail to the contrary with those same people.