LIMITS

Training
721

Brick if I understand correctly the 40-50 pound benchmark for training induced gains comes from what the top natural bodybuilders have done at x height as an end point, and the average weight of non-obese men at x height where the difference in LBM makes that benchmark? I don’t think brick was ever talking about dry muscle gains but actual LBM gains and accuracy in bf testing matters more the heavier one is since caliper calculations were based off people of average weight.

I think most of this arguing is over (whether misunderstood or not) the starting point rather than the end point unless one thinks he has surpassed what the top natural bodybuilders have done. I think for brick’s training induced gains definition if someone is below average weight/LBM of non-obese men for their height than whatever gains used to get to average weight/LBM don’t count for training induced gains since one could have gotten there just by plain eating and gaining weight.

722

[quote]Mtag666 wrote:

[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! :slight_smile:

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]

Exactly. I once did high rep kettlebell swings in a Crossfit trial class the soreness in my hams lasted for five or six days. GHR’s saved my lower back as well, by getting glutes and hams considerably stronger, the brunt of work fell less on my lower back in other exercises.

723

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Brick if I understand correctly the 40-50 pound benchmark for training induced gains comes from what the top natural bodybuilders have done at x height as an end point, and the average weight of non-obese men at x height where the difference in LBM makes that benchmark? I don’t think brick was ever talking about dry muscle gains but actual LBM gains and accuracy in bf testing matters more the heavier one is since caliper calculations were based off people of average weight.

I think most of this arguing is over (whether misunderstood or not) the starting point rather than the end point unless one thinks he has surpassed what the top natural bodybuilders have done. I think for brick’s training induced gains definition if someone is below average weight/LBM of non-obese men for their height than whatever gains used to get to average weight/LBM don’t count for training induced gains since one could have gotten there just by plain eating and gaining weight.[/quote]

Right!

And yes, I can be wrong! And no, I didn’t conduct a damn scientific experiment to get to my conclusion! And like I said before, unless someone is the most goddamn intolerant person in the world, I have no idea why they’d want to wear someone because of his or her belief which they came to based on thinking, observing, and reading!

NO–I don’t know the EXACT amount!
NO–I didn’t decipher between every damn racial or sub-racial group!
NO–I’m not an expert!
NO–I didn’t conduct a study!
NO–I didn’t pull the estimation out of thin air!

YES–I could be wrong!
YES–I’ve gone by what others more heavily involved who I trust have estimated as well as my own thoughts!

724

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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.[/quote]

Half-science? Seeing what my body does and then reacting to it based on what I know of the human body is “half science”?

What I told you is I avoid specific numbers and counting. I said that because the human body is extremely variable and in a constant state of flux. I am not sure how this relates to “half-science”.

725

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
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.[/quote]

Very good point, and one I went over before as well.

I believe he has some notion that his haphazard approach works for GETTING LEAN rather than from losing weight from an overweight or obese condition, which just takes not eating so damn much.

726

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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.[/quote]

Half-science? Seeing what my body does and then reacting to it based on what I know of the human body is “half science”?

What I told you is I avoid specific numbers and counting. I said that because the human body is extremely variable and in a constant state of flux. I am not sure how this relates to “half-science”.[/quote]

Yeah, it’s variable, but still the most efficient way to lean out is careful monitoring of nutrients and calories and exercise adjustments.

727

And yes it’s variable. That’s why within a diet, after starting from baseline, CALCULATED changes are made, for example, refeeds or high carb days or upping and lowering of calories and nutrients depending on how you’re looking. That’s how you deal with the changes.

728

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I think for brick’s training induced gains definition if someone is below average weight/LBM of non-obese men for their height than whatever gains used to get to average weight/LBM don’t count for training induced gains since one could have gotten there just by plain eating and gaining weight.[/quote]

This is a chart of average healthy body weights and height.

I was 5’10" 150…which according to this chart means I was of average weight, not underweight.

729

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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.[/quote]

Half-science? Seeing what my body does and then reacting to it based on what I know of the human body is “half science”?

What I told you is I avoid specific numbers and counting. I said that because the human body is extremely variable and in a constant state of flux. I am not sure how this relates to “half-science”.[/quote]

Yeah, it’s variable, but still the most efficient way to lean out is careful monitoring of nutrients and calories and exercise adjustments. [/quote]

I told you I monitor my food intake. I told you I don’t need a calculator for that because I do not see that as useful for my goals. Once again, that does not mean there is no monitoring of food intake going on.

730

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And yes it’s variable. That’s why within a diet, after starting from baseline, CALCULATED changes are made, for example, refeeds or high carb days or upping and lowering of calories and nutrients depending on how you’re looking. That’s how you deal with the changes. [/quote]

I can tell how I look and feel without a calculator. Any refeed days can be done as necessary.

731

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I think for brick’s training induced gains definition if someone is below average weight/LBM of non-obese men for their height than whatever gains used to get to average weight/LBM don’t count for training induced gains since one could have gotten there just by plain eating and gaining weight.[/quote]

This is a chart of average healthy body weights and height.

I was 5’10" 150…which according to this chart means I was of average weight, not underweight.[/quote]

Yes, that is considered average weight for your height. The problem stems from you thinking you’re carrying far more LBM than you are.

732

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
And yes it’s variable. That’s why within a diet, after starting from baseline, CALCULATED changes are made, for example, refeeds or high carb days or upping and lowering of calories and nutrients depending on how you’re looking. That’s how you deal with the changes. [/quote]

I can tell how I look and feel without a calculator. Any refeed days can be done as necessary.[/quote]

How do you refeed appropriately if you aren’t counting? Or do you do some type of portion control? Or do you just indiscriminately eat?

Eh, you have so much potential. Too bad you don’t heed some advice.

733

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I think for brick’s training induced gains definition if someone is below average weight/LBM of non-obese men for their height than whatever gains used to get to average weight/LBM don’t count for training induced gains since one could have gotten there just by plain eating and gaining weight.[/quote]

This is a chart of average healthy body weights and height.

I was 5’10" 150…which according to this chart means I was of average weight, not underweight.[/quote]

Yes, that is considered average weight for your height. The problem stems from you thinking you’re carrying far more LBM than you are. [/quote]

? I just had my body fat tested. I am not sure what you mean with this. I know ab out how much fat I am carrying. Why would you think I believe I am carrying so much more than I really am?

734

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I think for brick’s training induced gains definition if someone is below average weight/LBM of non-obese men for their height than whatever gains used to get to average weight/LBM don’t count for training induced gains since one could have gotten there just by plain eating and gaining weight.[/quote]

This is a chart of average healthy body weights and height.

I was 5’10" 150…which according to this chart means I was of average weight, not underweight.[/quote]

Yes, that is considered average weight for your height. The problem stems from you thinking you’re carrying far more LBM than you are. [/quote]

? I just had my body fat tested. I am not sure what you mean with this. I know ab out how much fat I am carrying. Why would you think I believe I am carrying so much more than I really am?[/quote]

Human error.

735

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

How do you refeed appropriately if you aren’t counting?[/quote]

How do you know you have refed properly even if you do count? You know exactly when your body is ready to grow the most from your training?

How do you know this?

736

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Brick if I understand correctly the 40-50 pound benchmark for training induced gains comes from what the top natural bodybuilders have done at x height as an end point, and the average weight of non-obese men at x height where the difference in LBM makes that benchmark? I don’t think brick was ever talking about dry muscle gains but actual LBM gains and accuracy in bf testing matters more the heavier one is since caliper calculations were based off people of average weight.

I think most of this arguing is over (whether misunderstood or not) the starting point rather than the end point unless one thinks he has surpassed what the top natural bodybuilders have done. I think for brick’s training induced gains definition if someone is below average weight/LBM of non-obese men for their height than whatever gains used to get to average weight/LBM don’t count for training induced gains since one could have gotten there just by plain eating and gaining weight.[/quote]

Right!

And yes, I can be wrong! And no, I didn’t conduct a damn scientific experiment to get to my conclusion! And like I said before, unless someone is the most goddamn intolerant person in the world, I have no idea why they’d want to wear someone because of his or her belief which they came to based on thinking, observing, and reading!

NO–I don’t know the EXACT amount!
NO–I didn’t decipher between every damn racial or sub-racial group!
NO–I’m not an expert!
NO–I didn’t conduct a study!
NO–I didn’t pull the estimation out of thin air!

YES–I could be wrong!
YES–I’ve gone by what others more heavily involved who I trust have estimated as well as my own thoughts!

[/quote]
I think the argument about different ethnicities throwing off the estimate is quite funny since n=sufficiently high that it doesn’t make a significant difference. We are all humans and no ethnicity is significantly different from another ethnicity genetically to disregard the data we have. As my anthropology teacher once said “How many races do humans have? Just one; the human race!”.

737

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I think for brick’s training induced gains definition if someone is below average weight/LBM of non-obese men for their height than whatever gains used to get to average weight/LBM don’t count for training induced gains since one could have gotten there just by plain eating and gaining weight.[/quote]

This is a chart of average healthy body weights and height.

I was 5’10" 150…which according to this chart means I was of average weight, not underweight.[/quote]

Yes, that is considered average weight for your height. The problem stems from you thinking you’re carrying far more LBM than you are. [/quote]

? I just had my body fat tested. I am not sure what you mean with this. I know ab out how much fat I am carrying. Why would you think I believe I am carrying so much more than I really am?[/quote]

Human error. [/quote]

That isn’t an explanation.

There is human error involved any time a human interacts with something…including underwater weighing.

If my body fat has been tested, how am I imagining how much muscle I have?

Are you now discounting caliper testing?

738

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

I think the argument about different ethnicities throwing off the estimate is quite funny since n=sufficiently high that it doesn’t make a significant difference. We are all humans and no ethnicity is significantly different from another ethnicity genetically to disregard the data we have. As my anthropology teacher once said “How many races do humans have? Just one; the human race!”.[/quote]

This is incorrect. You are stating that no ethnicities show any more lean body mass on average than any others?

739

509×598 46.8 KB

740

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Brick if I understand correctly the 40-50 pound benchmark for training induced gains comes from what the top natural bodybuilders have done at x height as an end point, and the average weight of non-obese men at x height where the difference in LBM makes that benchmark? I don’t think brick was ever talking about dry muscle gains but actual LBM gains and accuracy in bf testing matters more the heavier one is since caliper calculations were based off people of average weight.

I think most of this arguing is over (whether misunderstood or not) the starting point rather than the end point unless one thinks he has surpassed what the top natural bodybuilders have done. I think for brick’s training induced gains definition if someone is below average weight/LBM of non-obese men for their height than whatever gains used to get to average weight/LBM don’t count for training induced gains since one could have gotten there just by plain eating and gaining weight.[/quote]

Right!

And yes, I can be wrong! And no, I didn’t conduct a damn scientific experiment to get to my conclusion! And like I said before, unless someone is the most goddamn intolerant person in the world, I have no idea why they’d want to wear someone because of his or her belief which they came to based on thinking, observing, and reading!

NO–I don’t know the EXACT amount!
NO–I didn’t decipher between every damn racial or sub-racial group!
NO–I’m not an expert!
NO–I didn’t conduct a study!
NO–I didn’t pull the estimation out of thin air!

YES–I could be wrong!
YES–I’ve gone by what others more heavily involved who I trust have estimated as well as my own thoughts!

[/quote]
I think the argument about different ethnicities throwing off the estimate is quite funny since n=sufficiently high that it doesn’t make a significant difference. We are all humans and no ethnicity is significantly different from another ethnicity genetically to disregard the data we have. As my anthropology teacher once said “How many races do humans have? Just one; the human race!”.[/quote]

Eh, I’ve been to some racial anthropological works that don’t go in line with what your professor said, but it’s besides the point. Those are, works that show there are some substantial differences. But I think in the case of successful bodybuilders, only the most robust of the races will be able to mucularly develop to the degree we speak of here, so MAYBE the racial differences won’t account for the issue we speak of here. For example, I don’t believe Dorian Yates and Lee Haney had some genetic advantage in muscle building based on race considering the echelon they were both competing at, in one case in the same contest.