Meathead Camaraderie

Training
521

When looking at 1 person, 3 pounds per inch of height is a good rule of thumb, but it’s just a guideline and the taller someone is, the bigger that number should be. Shorter guys (think like 5’2") may only be 130 pounds in contest shape and look GREAT which is only a bit above 2 pounds per inch. When comparing 2 lifters of different heights, you need to add more than 3 pounds per inch. 5-10 is more likely, although 10 seems a bit on the high side to me.

For comparison, the average weight of men who don’t train at 5’10" is 161 while 5’11" is 164, that’s 3 pounds just from frame alone and doesn’t include the additional muscle a larger frame would need to carry for the 2 hypothetical physiques to be comparable.

Glad I could clear that up. :slight_smile:

522

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
If Utah Lama was professor X’s height he would be 195?[/quote]

LOL…JACKED BITCHES!

523

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
When looking at 1 person, 3 pounds per inch of height is a good rule of thumb, but it’s just a guideline and the taller someone is, the bigger that number should be. Shorter guys (think like 5’2") may only be 130 pounds in contest shape and look GREAT which is only a bit above 2 pounds per inch. When comparing 2 lifters of different heights, you need to add more than 3 pounds per inch. 5-10 is more likely, although 10 seems a bit on the high side to me.

For comparison, the average weight of men who don’t train at 5’10" is 161 while 5’11" is 164, that’s 3 pounds just from frame alone and doesn’t include the additional muscle a larger frame would need to carry for the 2 hypothetical physiques to be comparable.

Glad I could clear that up. :)[/quote]
We can’t use averages LankyMofo.
It makes no scientific sense to look at someone else’s average.
The goal is to DECREASE variables, not add more.
As if those with the best genetics would CHOOSE to stay 5’2"
Some here seem to be agreeing with me.

524

Someone wrap this thread up into one post. I tried reading it but I just couldn’t

525

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Lol X downing ppl for not being big his weight yet seems to forget he is bloated fat guy. Right now if I was his bf I would weigh more than him lol. But why the hell would I want that? WEIGHT DOESN’T MATTER. It’s about muscular lean size and when you can’t see the muscle because its covered by inches of fat your doing something wrong [/quote]

What happened to you? You were joining the laughable circle-jerking in X’s indigo log back then and now this. What make you change? Did he touch you?

526

i find it hilarious that we are now just arguing simply about who weighs the most…

stu, H4m, ryanb(not me the other guy lol), UtahLama, austin_biceps and greg. all have better physiques from a bodybuilding perspective that X. yet are no where near as heavy.

this is not me hating, but i have not seen any major changes in X’s physique since ive been here except for after he came back from his accident. the 2 photos he posted before show almost zero difference to me!

527

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
When looking at 1 person, 3 pounds per inch of height is a good rule of thumb, but it’s just a guideline and the taller someone is, the bigger that number should be. Shorter guys (think like 5’2") may only be 130 pounds in contest shape and look GREAT which is only a bit above 2 pounds per inch. When comparing 2 lifters of different heights, you need to add more than 3 pounds per inch. 5-10 is more likely, although 10 seems a bit on the high side to me.

For comparison, the average weight of men who don’t train at 5’10" is 161 while 5’11" is 164, that’s 3 pounds just from frame alone and doesn’t include the additional muscle a larger frame would need to carry for the 2 hypothetical physiques to be comparable.

Glad I could clear that up. :)[/quote]

3lbs/inch lean will have anyone looking damn good. I would need to be a lean 226 and I can you that I would look damn good a lean weight of 226. I’m still not seeing why you all of a sudden need more when comparing tall ppl. I am just over 6 btw

528

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
i find it hilarious that we are now just arguing simply about who weighs the most…

stu, H4m, ryanb(not me the other guy lol), UtahLama, austin_biceps and greg. all have better physiques from a bodybuilding perspective that X. yet are no where near as heavy.

this is not me hating, but i have not seen any major changes in X’s physique since ive been here except for after he came back from his accident. the 2 photos he posted before show almost zero difference to me!

[/quote]

Wow thanks for the compliment but I am not in those guys league though I am finally catching up ;). But not to stu. Which give me 5 years so I can at least worked on body building for 1/3 the time he has :slight_smile:

529

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
i find it hilarious that we are now just arguing simply about who weighs the most…

stu, H4m, ryanb(not me the other guy lol), UtahLama, austin_biceps and greg. all have better physiques from a bodybuilding perspective that X. yet are no where near as heavy.

this is not me hating, but i have not seen any major changes in X’s physique since ive been here except for after he came back from his accident. the 2 photos he posted before show almost zero difference to me!

[/quote]
To be fair I dont even think X ever entertains the thought that judged against those you mention he would ever place higher in a BB Contest but that isnt his aim. He said in the past his goal is to be huge and is not concerned if a big proportion of that is fat.

530

Sorry SS and Brown Disaster but your days of being the funniest guys on the net are over!

“I was in a serious motorcycle accident that would ahve taken most people out of the gym completely”.

Whoever said this statement is now the funniest guy on the World Wide Web

531

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
When looking at 1 person, 3 pounds per inch of height is a good rule of thumb, but it’s just a guideline and the taller someone is, the bigger that number should be. Shorter guys (think like 5’2") may only be 130 pounds in contest shape and look GREAT which is only a bit above 2 pounds per inch. When comparing 2 lifters of different heights, you need to add more than 3 pounds per inch. 5-10 is more likely, although 10 seems a bit on the high side to me.

For comparison, the average weight of men who don’t train at 5’10" is 161 while 5’11" is 164, that’s 3 pounds just from frame alone and doesn’t include the additional muscle a larger frame would need to carry for the 2 hypothetical physiques to be comparable.

Glad I could clear that up. :)[/quote]

3lbs/inch lean will have anyone looking damn good. I would need to be a lean 226 and I can you that I would look damn good a lean weight of 226. I’m still not seeing why you all of a sudden need more when comparing tall ppl. I am just over 6 btw[/quote]

I agree it would make you look damn good, but I’m talking about how to compare 2 different people and how much they’d weigh with comparable physiques. We’re not talking about 5-10 pounds for every inch on your body, just for the incremental inches when comparing 2 different lifters. Again, put 3 pounds per inch on someone who is 5’2" and they would be 186 pounds in contest condition.

Sorry, but that’s not happening for a natural trainee. Which is why I’m telling you the 3 pounds per inch is a rough guideline and you can’t use it to add 3 pounds for every incremental inch 1 trainee has over another. It’s more than that.

If you don’t understand what I’m saying and just want to focus on the tunnel vision of X hate going on, feel free to do so but I don’t feel like going back and forth.

532

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Someone wrap this thread up into one post. I tried reading it but I just couldn’t[/quote]

X whines about how there’s no camaraderie anymore on this site. After some probing questions we find out that he wants less experienced people to stop posting and everyone else to stop picking on him.

Someone points out that PX already has this option with T-Cell Alpha.

X doesn’t like this answer because there’s not much traffic in the T-Cell and he loves shit storms.

Others point out that people aren’t nice to X because he’s an argumentative dick to everyone who disagrees with him.

X dismisses this assertion as an outlandish, blatant lie.

Someone posts examples of how he’s an asshole.

X slyly ignores it. Clever girl.

Inevitably, genetic limits comes up AGAIN. This goes for many pages.

X says he bigger than most.

Others say that some people would rather be somewhat smaller but leaner.

X says he’s fine with people having different goals but everyone else is still smaller than him.

The Unit makes an appearance to defend X’s honor. X gives it the “Best Post” treatment.

PX’s version:

I started a thread so we can discover why there is no camaraderie among the T-Nation brethren anymore.

People immediately attack me with vicious lies.

I humbly point out that everyone has different goals and that we should all strive to support one another.

The zraw haters posse tells me I’m obese. They are a strange cult.

So far two people have made posts to support me. I know there are many, many others but they are probably just waiting for the right time to chime in.

533

[quote]jp_dubya wrote:
Someone wrap this thread up into one post. I tried reading it but I just couldn’t[/quote]

534

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
When looking at 1 person, 3 pounds per inch of height is a good rule of thumb, but it’s just a guideline and the taller someone is, the bigger that number should be. Shorter guys (think like 5’2") may only be 130 pounds in contest shape and look GREAT which is only a bit above 2 pounds per inch. When comparing 2 lifters of different heights, you need to add more than 3 pounds per inch. 5-10 is more likely, although 10 seems a bit on the high side to me.

For comparison, the average weight of men who don’t train at 5’10" is 161 while 5’11" is 164, that’s 3 pounds just from frame alone and doesn’t include the additional muscle a larger frame would need to carry for the 2 hypothetical physiques to be comparable.

Glad I could clear that up. :)[/quote]

3lbs/inch lean will have anyone looking damn good. I would need to be a lean 226 and I can you that I would look damn good a lean weight of 226. I’m still not seeing why you all of a sudden need more when comparing tall ppl. I am just over 6 btw[/quote]

I agree it would make you look damn good, but I’m talking about how to compare 2 different people and how much they’d weigh with comparable physiques. We’re not talking about 5-10 pounds for every inch on your body, just for the incremental inches when comparing 2 different lifters. Again, put 3 pounds per inch on someone who is 5’2" and they would be 186 pounds in contest condition. Sorry, but that’s not happening for a natural trainee. Which is why I’m telling you the 3 pounds per inch is a rough guideline and you can’t use it to add 3 pounds for every incremental inch 1 trainee has over another. It’s more than that.

If you don’t understand what I’m saying and just want to focus on the tunnel vision of X hate going on, feel free to do so but I don’t feel like going back and forth. [/quote]

We aren’t really talking about contest level leanness though.
Professor X’s 3.5 pounds per inch is no where near contest levels of leanness.
3 pounds per inch competition levels as a natural?
I do not know of many 5’10 naturals who compete at 210.

I see what you are getting at LankyMofo but I do not totally agree.
At one point do we switch from 2 pounds per inch to 3 pounds per inch to 5 pounds per inch?
Most importantly, when do we switch to 10 pounds per inch?
Is there even a 10 PPI difference in IFBB Pro’s?
Thanks

535

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
When looking at 1 person, 3 pounds per inch of height is a good rule of thumb, but it’s just a guideline and the taller someone is, the bigger that number should be. Shorter guys (think like 5’2") may only be 130 pounds in contest shape and look GREAT which is only a bit above 2 pounds per inch. When comparing 2 lifters of different heights, you need to add more than 3 pounds per inch. 5-10 is more likely, although 10 seems a bit on the high side to me.

For comparison, the average weight of men who don’t train at 5’10" is 161 while 5’11" is 164, that’s 3 pounds just from frame alone and doesn’t include the additional muscle a larger frame would need to carry for the 2 hypothetical physiques to be comparable.

Glad I could clear that up. :)[/quote]

3lbs/inch lean will have anyone looking damn good. I would need to be a lean 226 and I can you that I would look damn good a lean weight of 226. I’m still not seeing why you all of a sudden need more when comparing tall ppl. I am just over 6 btw[/quote]

I agree it would make you look damn good, but I’m talking about how to compare 2 different people and how much they’d weigh with comparable physiques. We’re not talking about 5-10 pounds for every inch on your body, just for the incremental inches when comparing 2 different lifters. Again, put 3 pounds per inch on someone who is 5’2" and they would be 186 pounds in contest condition. Sorry, but that’s not happening for a natural trainee. Which is why I’m telling you the 3 pounds per inch is a rough guideline and you can’t use it to add 3 pounds for every incremental inch 1 trainee has over another. It’s more than that.

If you don’t understand what I’m saying and just want to focus on the tunnel vision of X hate going on, feel free to do so but I don’t feel like going back and forth. [/quote]

We aren’t really talking about contest level leanness though.
Professor X’s 3.5 pounds per inch is no where near contest levels of leanness.
3 pounds per inch competition levels as a natural?
I do not know of many 5’10 naturals who compete at 210.
I see what you are getting at LankyMofo but I do not totally agree.
At one point do we switch from 2 pounds per inch to 3 pounds per inch to 5 pounds per inch?
Most importantly, when do we switch to 10 pounds per inch?
Is there even a 10 PPI difference in IFBB Pro’s?
Thanks [/quote]

We’re not switching from 2 to 3 to 10. All I’m saying is that the 3 pounds per inch guideline is relative to the lifters total height. The 5-10 pounds per inch guideline is for incremental inches of height between 2 lifters.

I’ve already shown an inch of height is roughly a 3 pound difference without even training due to the size of the frame. Add in some extra muscle to that so the physiques are comparable at different heights and we’re easily at 5+ pounds when comparing 2 different lifters.

536

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

Is there even a 10 PPI difference in IFBB Pro’s?
[/quote]

Wikipedia (I know, crap source but easiest to use and I’ve gotta get some work done) has Ronnie Coleman listed at 5’11" and contest condition of 297. Jay Cutler listed at 5’9" and contest condition of 274. 2 inches, 23 pounds difference.

I think this is on the high side as these are both freaks of nature (and obviously steroid assisted), but there you go.

537

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

Is there even a 10 PPI difference in IFBB Pro’s?
[/quote]

Wikipedia (I know, crap source but easiest to use and I’ve gotta get some work done) has Ronnie Coleman listed at 5’11" and contest condition of 297. Jay Cutler listed at 5’9" and contest condition of 274. 2 inches, 23 pounds difference.

I think this is on the high side as these are both freaks of nature (and obviously steroid assisted), but there you go. [/quote]

I don’t believe Ronnie ever competed at 290. His off season weight was 300 or a bit over. Big Ramy this year might be close 300 at competition though

538

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
When looking at 1 person, 3 pounds per inch of height is a good rule of thumb, but it’s just a guideline and the taller someone is, the bigger that number should be. Shorter guys (think like 5’2") may only be 130 pounds in contest shape and look GREAT which is only a bit above 2 pounds per inch. When comparing 2 lifters of different heights, you need to add more than 3 pounds per inch. 5-10 is more likely, although 10 seems a bit on the high side to me.

For comparison, the average weight of men who don’t train at 5’10" is 161 while 5’11" is 164, that’s 3 pounds just from frame alone and doesn’t include the additional muscle a larger frame would need to carry for the 2 hypothetical physiques to be comparable.

Glad I could clear that up. :)[/quote]

3lbs/inch lean will have anyone looking damn good. I would need to be a lean 226 and I can you that I would look damn good a lean weight of 226. I’m still not seeing why you all of a sudden need more when comparing tall ppl. I am just over 6 btw[/quote]

I agree it would make you look damn good, but I’m talking about how to compare 2 different people and how much they’d weigh with comparable physiques. We’re not talking about 5-10 pounds for every inch on your body, just for the incremental inches when comparing 2 different lifters. Again, put 3 pounds per inch on someone who is 5’2" and they would be 186 pounds in contest condition. Sorry, but that’s not happening for a natural trainee. Which is why I’m telling you the 3 pounds per inch is a rough guideline and you can’t use it to add 3 pounds for every incremental inch 1 trainee has over another. It’s more than that.

If you don’t understand what I’m saying and just want to focus on the tunnel vision of X hate going on, feel free to do so but I don’t feel like going back and forth. [/quote]

We aren’t really talking about contest level leanness though.
Professor X’s 3.5 pounds per inch is no where near contest levels of leanness.
3 pounds per inch competition levels as a natural?
I do not know of many 5’10 naturals who compete at 210.

I see what you are getting at LankyMofo but I do not totally agree.
At one point do we switch from 2 pounds per inch to 3 pounds per inch to 5 pounds per inch?
Most importantly, when do we switch to 10 pounds per inch?
Is there even a 10 PPI difference in IFBB Pro’s?
Thanks [/quote]

Agreed this isn’t contest lean we are taking about we are talking bout walking walking around leanness. Which means you still have a solid 10lbs to lose at best to be in competition leanness.

If you are at same bf level I see no reson why all of a sudden we would jump 5 lbs per inch of extra body height. Again as long as they are of similar bf %

539

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

Is there even a 10 PPI difference in IFBB Pro’s?
[/quote]

Wikipedia (I know, crap source but easiest to use and I’ve gotta get some work done) has Ronnie Coleman listed at 5’11" and contest condition of 297. Jay Cutler listed at 5’9" and contest condition of 274. 2 inches, 23 pounds difference.

I think this is on the high side as these are both freaks of nature (and obviously steroid assisted), but there you go. [/quote]

I don’t believe Ronnie ever competed at 290. His off season weight was 300 or a bit over. Big Ramy this year might be close 300 at competition though[/quote]

Ronnie was actually close to 300 at least one year IIRC. Something like 297.

540

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

Is there even a 10 PPI difference in IFBB Pro’s?
[/quote]

Wikipedia (I know, crap source but easiest to use and I’ve gotta get some work done) has Ronnie Coleman listed at 5’11" and contest condition of 297. Jay Cutler listed at 5’9" and contest condition of 274. 2 inches, 23 pounds difference.

I think this is on the high side as these are both freaks of nature (and obviously steroid assisted), but there you go. [/quote]

I don’t believe Ronnie ever competed at 290. His off season weight was 300 or a bit over. Big Ramy this year might be close 300 at competition though[/quote]

Ronnie was actually close to 300 at least one year IIRC. Something like 297.[/quote]

^Yes. Not his best look IMO (certainly not big Ron’s favorite Olympia look either), but you couldn’t ignore the Shock and Awe factor.

As an aside, it definitely cemented the fact that size alone doesn’t win an Olympia, as he came in lighter for each successive win afterwards. Ronnie wasn’t sloppy mind you, but for anyone touting their scale weights, comparing to top IFBB pros (PED issues aside) and their stats in contest condition should be a reality check no matter how much you try to fight it.

By his own admission, Coleman looked his best in '98, which I believe (correct me if I’m wrong), had him tipping the scales at ‘only’ about 250 lbs on a 5’11 frame.

S