[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]
That certainly falls within the healthy weight range though on the low end but the average according to the chart is 166 pounds.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
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.
[/quote]
At least we agree on this.
It is wrong to think that there is no difference across ethnic groups.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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?[/quote]
Here’s what I’m going by: if you were to get very lean (not contest ready), like 10 you’d be much lighter than you think you will be, perhaps around 200 pounds give or take a few pounds.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah 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]
That certainly falls within the healthy weight range though on the low end but the average according to the chart is 166 pounds.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what the average is. The bottom line is, I was a healthy thin kid who was NOT underweight and started training seriously when I had stopped growing in height.
Even if you were to discount earl growth, the truth is, YES, people can gain that much. Whether they keep it all dieted down to extremely low levels is something we don’t know…but we do NOT have enough evidence to know what even most people can do across all ethnicities.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Here’s what I’m going by: if you were to get very lean (not contest ready), like 10 you’d be much lighter than you think you will be, perhaps around 200 pounds give or take a few pounds.
[/quote]
That is your opinion. I don’t agree with you because I am 250lbs at about 15%. You seem to WANT me to have to diet down to 200lbs just to be 10% when nothing points to that.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah 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]
That certainly falls within the healthy weight range though on the low end but the average according to the chart is 166 pounds.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what the average is. The bottom line is, I was a healthy thin kid who was NOT underweight and started training seriously when I had stopped growing in height.
Even if you were to discount earl growth, the truth is, YES, people can gain that much. Whether they keep it all dieted down to extremely low levels is something we don’t know…but we do NOT have enough evidence to know what even most people can do across all ethnicities.[/quote]
Evidence to me: thousands of White, Black, and Asian bodybuilders.
It is interesting to note that nearly every white Mr. Olympia has been a Nordic type, which isn’t surprising considering that sub-race is the most heavily boned and muscled out of all whites.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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?[/quote]
I’m not saying this, what I’m saying is that there have been sufficient number of natural bodybuilding competitors at top levels coming from various ethnicities(black, white, latin etc) that postulating another ethnicity that’s not in the data would highly unlikely change the 40-50 pound benchmark by much.
Those two weight/percentile charts are interesting as for someone of 20 years of age the 50% percentiles were around 160 pounds for both.
Edited.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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?[/quote]
A refeed can be done once every few days or as infrequently as every 14 days depending on how restrictive the diet is and how the person is feeling and looking and progressing. The size of the refeed also depends on this too, but regardless of size, SPECIFIC amounts of carbs are given during a refeed.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[/quote]
There’s a pretty easy explanation for the weight chart. According to the CDC, “Compared with whites, Blacks had 51% higher and Hispanics had 21% higher obesity rates.”
Though that statistic is based on BMI, which has the potential to be bogus, it is still the best measurement to use for statistics encompassing the general population. You’re completely off your rocker if you think such skewed numbers is entirely on the shoulders of brothers on the blacktops playing ball who are so muscular they pop over the obese line just because they’re black(there are white guys who break the BMI scale too, I know it’s hard to believe).
I just chugged a gallon of water. I now have 9 more pounds of LBM.
80 pounds, here I come!
Serious question Professor X - I have seen you talk about knee issues quite a bit. I know you have had several accidents that would cripple most men but do you think that your knee pain issues has to do with being 260-300 pounds at 5’10 coupled with a lack of mobility work? I am not saying that the accidents didn’t contribute to your knee pain but I remember you talking about knee pain starting in the military when you said that you weighed close to 300 pounds. I know for a fact that some serious mobility work (check out mobility wod dot com) coupled with weight loss would help your knees.
Please do not respond with “how do you know I’m not doing enough mobility work already?”
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Serious question Professor X - I have seen you talk about knee issues quite a bit. I know you have had several accidents that would cripple most men but do you think that your knee pain issues has to do with being 260-300 pounds at 5’10 coupled with a lack of mobility work? I am not saying that the accidents didn’t contribute to your knee pain but I remember you talking about knee pain starting in the military when you said that you weighed close to 300 pounds. I know for a fact that some serious mobility work (check out mobility wod dot com) coupled with weight loss would help your knees.
Please do not respond with “how do you know I’m not doing enough mobility work already?”
[/quote]
Bodybuilding not about health.
Make modifications for longevity.
Me no comprehend.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah 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]
That certainly falls within the healthy weight range though on the low end but the average according to the chart is 166 pounds.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what the average is. The bottom line is, I was a healthy thin kid who was NOT underweight and started training seriously when I had stopped growing in height.
Even if you were to discount earl growth, the truth is, YES, people can gain that much. Whether they keep it all dieted down to extremely low levels is something we don’t know…but we do NOT have enough evidence to know what even most people can do across all ethnicities.[/quote]
Evidence to me: thousands of White, Black, and Asian bodybuilders.
It is interesting to note that nearly every white Mr. Olympia has been a Nordic type, which isn’t surprising considering that sub-race is the most heavily boned and muscled out of all whites.
[/quote]
I have noticed the same thing. Scandinavian folks always seem to be the tallest and have the biggest hands. There was a guy at my job who was full blooded Finnish. He never lifted a weight and was slightly fat but had solid 18 inch arms and was strong as a bull.
[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah 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]
That certainly falls within the healthy weight range though on the low end but the average according to the chart is 166 pounds.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what the average is. The bottom line is, I was a healthy thin kid who was NOT underweight and started training seriously when I had stopped growing in height.
Even if you were to discount earl growth, the truth is, YES, people can gain that much. Whether they keep it all dieted down to extremely low levels is something we don’t know…but we do NOT have enough evidence to know what even most people can do across all ethnicities.[/quote]
Evidence to me: thousands of White, Black, and Asian bodybuilders.
It is interesting to note that nearly every white Mr. Olympia has been a Nordic type, which isn’t surprising considering that sub-race is the most heavily boned and muscled out of all whites.
[/quote]
I have noticed the same thing. Scandinavian folks always seem to be the tallest and have the biggest hands. There was a guy at my job who was full blooded Finnish. He never lifted a weight and was slightly fat but had solid 18 inch arms and was strong as a bull.[/quote]
Right, on average they’re more heavily muscled and bigger boned and taller than the other two major branches of white, Alpine and Mediterranean.
I don’t think it’s “scandinavian genetics” that makes a person bigger. I think it’s the lifestyle.
In the US people eat alot more food, alot more processed food, and exercise less on average than in Scandinavia.
Students in the US have generally less exercise in the school curriculum in my opinion, and also in their freetime they are less active.
In Scandinavia kids used to play soccer, basketball,icehockey etc afterschool by themselves for hours and on weekends.
When I went to middleschool in Finland, we would spend 6h in school, play soccer outside during breaks (we had a ball with us), go play more soccer after school, go play basketball during weekends, have pullup competitions etc. During winter it would be icehockey, and we even had some days organized by school when we would just play hockey the whole day once a month and the school would organize lunch etc. Also, it wasnt a “sports school”, I was in the “math-class” . Kids would join lots of sports clubs, for instance I was in the schools swimming team, track team, basketball team, soccer team, and then on my own competed in Judo and a shorter time in basketball.
When I got to US for highschool it was quite the opposite. During lunchbreak or breaks in general nobody moves around, people enjoy going to movies/out for a coffee more than exercising. Classes were longer but more slowpaced. Also, the varsity team had practise only twice a week. I am not saying it’s bad, it’s just a different lifestyle.
In general I think Scandinavian kids are more healthy, but kids in the US learn to work better. But it’s changing now probably in both countries with the computers and x-box, also at age 18 teens start to drink shitloads on average in Scandinavia (since it’s legal).
I dont think people in general are these “Vikings” you see on TV-shows anymore. Maybe when they were still chopping wood, and eating tons of fish.
on another note:
If I was to change the average American school, I would add more mandatory exercise, healthier food (seriously,- why do you serve soda, pizza and french fries to growing kids in a school cafeteria?), faster paced lectures/classes.
If I was to change the average Scandinavian school, I would add more homework and motivation (americans are better in motivating), tutorials, discussion. And there’s this strange idea that it’s ok to not do homework sometimes.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Serious question Professor X - I have seen you talk about knee issues quite a bit. I know you have had several accidents that would cripple most men but do you think that your knee pain issues has to do with being 260-300 pounds at 5’10 coupled with a lack of mobility work? I am not saying that the accidents didn’t contribute to your knee pain but I remember you talking about knee pain starting in the military when you said that you weighed close to 300 pounds. I know for a fact that some serious mobility work (check out mobility wod dot com) coupled with weight loss would help your knees.
Please do not respond with “how do you know I’m not doing enough mobility work already?”
[/quote]
Bodybuilding not about health.
Make modifications for longevity.
Me no comprehend.
[/quote]
Ha 
I understand that bodybuilding in and of itself isn’t about health but there are things that can be done, as I’m sure you know, that will help you be healthier and can let you train more effectively to become GASP a better bodybuilder!!! I’m sure almost everyone here takes a fish oil or something else for joint health. This is a good idea but why take a pill to eleviate pain amd leave it at that when you can put in some time and effort in mobility work to get the same result? Or do them in conjunction with one another for even better results!!! Maybe it is part of our culture nowadays and everyone wants instant gratification, a pill is just “easier.”
Anyways. I’m not saying this is X’s mentality I am just going off on a tangent I suppose. Mobility work never hurt anyone.
[quote]NikH wrote:
I don’t think it’s “scandinavian genetics” that makes a person bigger. I think it’s the lifestyle.
In the US people eat alot more food, alot more processed food, and exercise less on average than in Scandinavia.
Students in the US have generally less exercise in the school curriculum in my opinion, and also in their freetime they are less active.
In Scandinavia kids used to play soccer, basketball,icehockey etc afterschool by themselves for hours and on weekends.
When I went to middleschool in Finland, we would spend 6h in school, play soccer outside during breaks (we had a ball with us), go play more soccer after school, go play basketball during weekends, have pullup competitions etc. During winter it would be icehockey, and we even had some days organized by school when we would just play hockey the whole day once a month and the school would organize lunch etc. Also, it wasnt a “sports school”, I was in the “math-class” . Kids would join lots of sports clubs, for instance I was in the schools swimming team, track team, basketball team, soccer team, and then on my own competed in Judo and a shorter time in basketball.
When I got to US for highschool it was quite the opposite. During lunchbreak or breaks in general nobody moves around, people enjoy going to movies/out for a coffee more than exercising. Classes were longer but more slowpaced. Also, the varsity team had practise only twice a week. I am not saying it’s bad, it’s just a different lifestyle.
In general I think Scandinavian kids are more healthy, but kids in the US learn to work better. But it’s changing now probably in both countries with the computers and x-box, also at age 18 teens start to drink shitloads on average in Scandinavia (since it’s legal).
I dont think people in general are these “Vikings” you see on TV-shows anymore. Maybe when they were still chopping wood, and eating tons of fish.
on another note:
If I was to change the average American school, I would add more mandatory exercise, healthier food (seriously,- why do you serve soda, pizza and french fries to growing kids in a school cafeteria?), faster paced lectures/classes.
If I was to change the average Scandinavian school, I would add more homework and motivation (americans are better in motivating), tutorials, discussion. And there’s this strange idea that it’s ok to not do homework sometimes.[/quote]
I see what you’re saying but, from what I’ve learned (NOT an expert, and far from one), the evolution of and genetic differentiation between the branches of the white race-Alpine, Mediterranean, Nordic, East Baltic, and Dinaric–was set a LONG time ago, like during the Ice Age. And Nordics don’t only exist in Scandinavia. They’re all over Europe and the USA. A sizable chunk of Poland, Russia, Germany, Italy, France, and Spain are Nordic, as well as some other places. I don’t think lifestyle could explain the other traits the white sub-races have besides height and musculature, such as pigmentation, eye and hair color, skull shape, facial features, and so on.
Anyway, I don’t want to derail this thread, because I’m a history buff, and I can really start rambling about topics I like.