LIMITS

Training
781

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[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]

Those activities would not give someone a bigger bone structure. I think there is such a thing as nordic or Scandinavian genetics. Like the example I gave of a coworker (who was full blooded Finnish) but lived in USA his whole life. He never worked out and was still a beast.

They just tend to be big people.[/quote]

Exactly.

Just for fun we can as amateurs try to do some classifying and see who the biggest are, even though I can be wrong because I’m no anthropologist. I do find this stuff interesting though.

Nordic: Dennis Wolf, Arnold Schwarzenneger, Dorian Yates, Michael Francois, Marcus Ruhl, Gunther Schlierkamp, Larry Scott, Dave Draper, Reg Park, Gary Strydom
Mediterranean: Marc Dugdale, Rusty Jeffers, Franco Santoriello, Franco Columbu, Michael Kefelianos
Alpine: Mariusz Pudzianowski (probably some Nordic admixture)
Dinaric: Milos Sarcev
East Baltic: Zydrunas Savickas

[/quote]

Finnish people are not that big.Swedish and Dutch are way taller and a bit heavier.There are many big tall Polish.But the tallest and biggest are Montenegrians.

782

[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]

Well,there also Croatian genetics that makes a person bigger.
Lets just ponder the fact that a small city of Split,located on Croatian cost,having only 250 000 people gave 3 NBA players back in the day when there werent many European players there in the 90-ties= Dino Radja,Zan Tabak,Toni Kukoc.

783

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[quote]MytchBucanan wrote:

[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]

Those activities would not give someone a bigger bone structure. I think there is such a thing as nordic or Scandinavian genetics. Like the example I gave of a coworker (who was full blooded Finnish) but lived in USA his whole life. He never worked out and was still a beast.

They just tend to be big people.[/quote]

Exactly.

Just for fun we can as amateurs try to do some classifying and see who the biggest are, even though I can be wrong because I’m no anthropologist. I do find this stuff interesting though.

Nordic: Dennis Wolf, Arnold Schwarzenneger, Dorian Yates, Michael Francois, Marcus Ruhl, Gunther Schlierkamp, Larry Scott, Dave Draper, Reg Park, Gary Strydom
Mediterranean: Marc Dugdale, Rusty Jeffers, Franco Santoriello, Franco Columbu, Michael Kefelianos
Alpine: Mariusz Pudzianowski (probably some Nordic admixture)
Dinaric: Milos Sarcev
East Baltic: Zydrunas Savickas

[/quote]

Finnish people are not that big.Swedish and Dutch are way taller and a bit heavier.There are many big tall Polish.But the tallest and biggest are Montenegrians.
[/quote]

Racial grouping isn’t dependent on nationality. As I said, there are Nordics all over the USA, Europe, and even India and the Middle East (or at least Nordic strains amongst the Eurasian people who live in those places). Just as is the same with the other groups: they’ve traveled and settled all over the place.

No, not every Pole is Nordic, and not every Nordic is tall, blue eyed, or red or blonde haired, and fair skinned. There is variation in the sub racial groupings.

The people living in Montenegro and the other Balkan countries, Croatia being one of them, are mostly Dinarics, which are very tall as well. If I have it correctly, Dinarics are either a mix of Mediterranean and Nordic or an intermediate between the two. Yeah, some are VERY tall. The tallest Croat ever was 7’9" Grgo Kusic. And I mentioned Milos Sarcev before, who is big boned and tall.

785

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
This whole topic would make a great thread btw…
[/quote]

Most definitely. Ever since I got into learning about BBing, I’ve heard people comment about certain advantages various heritages, or races have in regard to musculature or performance. I’m certainly not going to start searching for scientific studies backing any of this, because I’m sure it’s sensitive topic in some circles and proposing its findings as genuinely useful information might not go over well.

Didn’t Jimmy the Greek get in trouble for stating that black athletes had a natural advantage or something?

S[/quote]

This isn’t about being politically correct. It is about the truth…unless you really think Somoans don’t carry any more lean body mass than the average Caucasian.

786

[quote]chimera182 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Am I missing something here, or is “22%” not itself an estimate?

EDIT: That’s not meant to be sarcast BTW, just wondering.[/quote]

This comment makes no sense.

No human can live with zero water in muscle tissue…so knowing dry weight can only happen in death.

Yes, we know what the average dry weight of muscle is in dead sedentary people. What is it you misunderstand?

Brick is making up a number to represent the dry weight of muscle tissue when no one can know this in a bodybuilder without them dying first.

let me know if you need further explanation.

787

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

[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]

This did not answer the question.

How do you know when your body is ready to supercompensate the most?

788

[quote]red04 wrote:

[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).[/quote]

Strawman?

I didn’t say anything about brothers on black tops. I made a point that most of the people winning bodybuilding contests in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s were white guys…so if you are looking at only one ethnicity in majority and forming some average for what ALL HUMANS can reach, your data used is incomplete.

Assuming that this is because of obesity and then assuming all humans match the one ethnicity seen in majority is just bad science.

We don’t have enough info to form these “limits” especially when someone is setting it at a number that some people are actually reaching.

789

[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]

For the record, this is that pic of me near 290lbs.

Obviously I am not lean in this picture…but I also think that if someone can look like this at damn near 290lbs, they did gain a shit load of muscle tissue.

I also don’t think I look so upsetting in this picture that I needed to cry about obesity.

Sorry about the lighting but I didn’t take the picture and I can’t go back in time.

I am just posting this to show what I usually looked like at my heaviest…which to me ain’t bad.

790

[quote]Professor X 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]

For the record, this is that pic of me near 290lbs.

Obviously I am not lean in this picture…but I also think that if someone can look like this at damn near 290lbs, they did gain a shit load of muscle tissue.

I also don’t think I look so upsetting in this picture that I needed to cry about obesity.

Sorry about the lighting but I didn’t take the picture and I can’t go back in time.

I am just posting this to show what I usually looked like at my heaviest…which to me ain’t bad.
[/quote]

pecs look fucking nuts

791

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

pecs look fucking nuts[/quote]

I appreciate that.

It is things like that though that make me wonder at people degrading how “fat” I supposedly am all the time.

I was nearly 290lbs in that pic with no gut hanging. In most real gyms, people wouldn’t laugh at that…but here…all they see if fat?

Either way, that is just to show what I usually looked like at my heaviest. I don’t see many people that size on this forum to justify the attacks lately…especially about “real exercises”.

Obviously the exercises I chose were real enough to build a chest like that.

792

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

pecs look fucking nuts[/quote]

I appreciate that.

It is things like that though that make me wonder at people degrading how “fat” I supposedly am all the time.

I was nearly 290lbs in that pic with no gut hanging. In most real gyms, people wouldn’t laugh at that…but here…all they see if fat?

Either way, that is just to show what I usually looked like at my heaviest. I don’t see many people that size on this forum to justify the attacks lately…especially about “real exercises”.

Obviously the exercises I chose were real enough to build a chest like that.[/quote]

You have a gut in the pic but if anything it looks like severe bloat than fat!

Looked like a boss at 290lbs, its truly hard for anyone to really deny that.

793

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

You have a gut in the pic but if anything it looks like severe bloat than fat!

Looked like a boss at 290lbs, its truly hard for anyone to really deny that.
[/quote]

I found one of me at about 300lbs but it isn’t shirtless.

Either way, the only point I am making is that most gym rats know the difference between what I was looking like and a truly obese person who just eats whatever he wants.

I was carrying a shit load of muscle so I would disagree with someone stating that it was mostly fat and that I only gained 40lbs of muscle between that and when I was 150lbs.

Other than that, I am not pretending that I am leaner than I am. I just know the difference between mostly fat and mostly muscle.

794

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]chimera182 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Am I missing something here, or is “22%” not itself an estimate?

EDIT: That’s not meant to be sarcast BTW, just wondering.[/quote]

This comment makes no sense.

No human can live with zero water in muscle tissue…so knowing dry weight can only happen in death.

Yes, we know what the average dry weight of muscle is in dead sedentary people. What is it you misunderstand?

Brick is making up a number to represent the dry weight of muscle tissue when no one can know this in a bodybuilder without them dying first.

let me know if you need further explanation.[/quote]

I understand the water weight thing, I just wasn’t sure where the 22% came from or what it applies to. So in a dead person, “dry” muscle weight makes up 22% of their total body weight? But doesn’t that depend on how much muscle they have to begin with?

I’m just a bit confused about the number, I’m not disputing it as I have no knowledge on the matter.

795

[quote]chimera182 wrote:

I understand the water weight thing, I just wasn’t sure where the 22% came from or what it applies to. So in a dead person, “dry” muscle weight makes up 22% of their total body weight? But doesn’t that depend on how much muscle they have to begin with?

I’m just a bit confused about the number, I’m not disputing it as I have no knowledge on the matter.[/quote]

22% is the number given in estimation of how much muscle weight you have is actually just dry muscle proteins.

That means if you have 100lbs of pure muscle mass on you, it would be a very rough estimate to claim about 22% of that number is dry muscle weight. That is why someone saying that you gained “40-50lbs of just muscle” makes no scientific sense. It is just one man’s way of throwing a number at someone’s gains based on nothing.

We go by lean body weight and fat weight to determine body comp. We do NOT go by “dry muscle weight” because no one would know this and in a bodybuilder this amount has been so narrowly studied that it would be pointless to throw a number at it now.

That was the main issue with what Brick was writing before. His numbers are basically completely made up and the names dropped don’t justify it.

Your body is mostly water…this is also why you can’t say that a real lean body mass requires you to be dieted down. Your body is in a transient state being that depleted. It doesn’t mean you have “fake muscles” because your lean body mass is higher after refeeding after a contest.

796

[quote]Professor X 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]

For the record, this is that pic of me near 290lbs.

Obviously I am not lean in this picture…but I also think that if someone can look like this at damn near 290lbs, they did gain a shit load of muscle tissue.

I also don’t think I look so upsetting in this picture that I needed to cry about obesity.

Sorry about the lighting but I didn’t take the picture and I can’t go back in time.

I am just posting this to show what I usually looked like at my heaviest…which to me ain’t bad.
[/quote]

haha, you are a BIG fucker in that pic, lol

797

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

haha, you are a BIG fucker in that pic, lol[/quote]

Which is all I have ever stated here. Most people who saw me at that weight seemed to be impressed with it.

Only here did I learn that it was all fat and that I supposedly only gained 40lbs of muscle total.

I was 5’10 and weighed almost 290lbs with no big belly. I personally see that as a win, not a fail.

798

btw, i had my body-fat tested via caliper at my local fitness center, and Prof X guessed me right on via my pic, he said i was around 17% and that is what i was.

799

…and that avatar pic is recent as in last week…so yeah. the shoulders are still there.

800

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:

haha, you are a BIG fucker in that pic, lol[/quote]

Which is all I have ever stated here. Most people who saw me at that weight seemed to be impressed with it.

Only here did I learn that it was all fat and that I supposedly only gained 40lbs of muscle total.

I was 5’10 and weighed almost 290lbs with no big belly. I personally see that as a win, not a fail.[/quote]

when have i ever said you looked anything less that impressive, i hope that was not directed at me.