Meathead Camaraderie

Training
541

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[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[/quote]

I agree. I think he was 248 then. Looked amazing.

542

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[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[/quote]

I agree. I think he was 248 then. Looked amazing.

All I could think about during that video is how the hell did Nassar never win an O?

543

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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 %
[/quote]

Then you’re not comprehending what I’m writing.

A non trained person weighs 3 pounds more with an extra inch of height due to the size difference in frames alone. Would the taller person not, in addition to the extra 3 pounds they already carry, have to add a few extra pounds of muscle to look comparable to the shorter lifter?

544

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Thank you. You summed it up when mos here werte apparently focusing on just arguing with me. This is a general guideline to judge differences between two different bodybuilders of differtenyt heights. It was pretty common knowledge…until this thread apparently.

545

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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 %
[/quote]

Then you’re not comprehending what I’m writing.

A non trained person weighs 3 pounds more with an extra inch of height due to the size difference in frames alone. Would the taller person not, in addition to the extra 3 pounds they already carry, have to add a few extra pounds of muscle to look comparable to the shorter lifter?

[/quote]

Yes.

If I gained 3" in height, it is understood that this would make me relatively similar in build at the greater height…which means an addition of muscle mass to compensate.

Goodness, I have seen CT talk about this and there wasn’t the “war” against what he was saying.

546

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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 %
[/quote]

Then you’re not comprehending what I’m writing.

A non trained person weighs 3 pounds more with an extra inch of height due to the size difference in frames alone. Would the taller person not, in addition to the extra 3 pounds they already carry, have to add a few extra pounds of muscle to look comparable to the shorter lifter?

[/quote]

Think about 1 inch on a ruler and 2 pounds of steak.
Not exactly proportionate.
2 pounds of muscle per extra inch is not realistic.

Look at those average untrained weights vs Professor X’s weight.
Untrained 5’10 was 161 correct?
That is an untrained weight of 2.3 pounds per inch
Professor X is 5’10 and 250.
That is a trained weight of 3.57 pounds per inch.
Professor X has added roughly 90 pounds of body weight over the average weight for an untrained individual and tha had only added 1.3 pounds per inch.

Now all of the sudden we add that 1.3 + 2 to 7 MORE pounds for some reason?
The extra weight for frame and muscle is already there when multiplying by 3.57
Where does the extra 1.5-6.5 pounds per inch come from?
Make sense?

547

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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 %
[/quote]

Then you’re not comprehending what I’m writing.

A non trained person weighs 3 pounds more with an extra inch of height due to the size difference in frames alone. Would the taller person not, in addition to the extra 3 pounds they already carry, have to add a few extra pounds of muscle to look comparable to the shorter lifter?

[/quote]

Yes.

If I gained 3" in height, it is understood that this would make me relatively similar in build at the greater height…which means an addition of muscle mass to compensate.

Goodness, I have seen CT talk about this and there wasn’t the “war” against what he was saying.[/quote]
There is no “war” against what you are saying.
It’s called a discussion.
You know, bouncing ideas back and forth in a civil manner.
You should try it some time, it’s quite nice.

548

hahaha

A “war”, for real?

549

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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 %
[/quote]

Then you’re not comprehending what I’m writing.

A non trained person weighs 3 pounds more with an extra inch of height due to the size difference in frames alone. Would the taller person not, in addition to the extra 3 pounds they already carry, have to add a few extra pounds of muscle to look comparable to the shorter lifter?

[/quote]

Think about 1 inch on a ruler and 2 pounds of steak.
Not exactly proportionate.
2 pounds of muscle per extra inch is not realistic.[/quote]

1 extra inch may be 2 or 3 extra pounds of muscle over an entire body. For X, that’s 70 inches not to mention the depth of his body (no homo on that one). We’re not talking about a 1 inch, 2D figure with 2 pounds of muscle squished into a little bit of space.

[quote]Look at those average untrained weights vs Professor X’s weight.
Untrained 5’10 was 161 correct?
That is an untrained weight of 2.3 pounds per inch
Professor X is 5’10 and 250.
That is a trained weight of 3.57 pounds per inch.
Professor X has added roughly 90 pounds of body weight over the average weight for an untrained individual and tha had only added 1.3 pounds per inch. Now all of the sudden we add that 1.3 + 2 to 7 MORE pounds for some reason?
The extra weight for frame and muscle is already there when multiplying by 3.57
Where does the extra 1.5-6.5 pounds per inch come from?
Make sense?[/quote]

This is all a discussion of 1 lifter at the same height. I’m discussing how to compare the heights and weights of 2 different lifters to have comparable physiques.

550

Smashingweights - look at it this way - the taller lifter is going to need a bit more muscle on every single body part to achieve the same look as the shorter lifter. You don’t think that will accumulate to a few extra pounds? As I said, it’s not like we’re cramming 2 pounds of muscle into an area of 1 square inch.

551

I am actually a little confused on what exactly yall are arguing about (not sure if same thing) but this might help.

Bodybuilding legend Steve Reeves presented simple formulas for calculating what he considered to be ideal muscular weight. He suggested starting with a base of 160 pounds and adding 5 pounds for every inch of height above 5’5". For people above 6’0", he suggested starting with 200 pounds and adding 10 pounds per inch.

Using these formulae, a person 5’9" would have an ideal muscular weight of 180 pounds. A person 6’1" would weigh 210 pounds. The problem with these predictions is that they do not consider bone structure size.

In his book, Beyond Brawn, Stuart McRobert also proposed a method of estimating maximum muscular bodyweight. The suggestion is to start with 5’0" as a base height and 100 pounds as a base weight. Then add 10 pounds for every inch of height above 5’0" for a medium bone structure, 8 pounds for a small structure, and 12 pounds for a large structure. Above 5’9" add only half those amounts. A person of 5’9" with a medium structure would weigh 190 pounds. A person of 6’1" with a large structure would weigh 232 pounds.

This is a worthwhile refinement of the simple linear approach, but becomes inaccurate when dealing with very large and/or very small structured people

552

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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 %
[/quote]

Then you’re not comprehending what I’m writing.

A non trained person weighs 3 pounds more with an extra inch of height due to the size difference in frames alone. Would the taller person not, in addition to the extra 3 pounds they already carry, have to add a few extra pounds of muscle to look comparable to the shorter lifter?

[/quote]

Think about 1 inch on a ruler and 2 pounds of steak.
Not exactly proportionate.
2 pounds of muscle per extra inch is not realistic.[/quote]

1 extra inch may be 2 or 3 extra pounds of muscle over an entire body. For X, that’s 70 inches not to mention the depth of his body (no homo on that one). We’re not talking about a 1 inch, 2D figure with 2 pounds of muscle squished into a little bit of space.

[quote]Look at those average untrained weights vs Professor X’s weight.
Untrained 5’10 was 161 correct?
That is an untrained weight of 2.3 pounds per inch
Professor X is 5’10 and 250.
That is a trained weight of 3.57 pounds per inch.
Professor X has added roughly 90 pounds of body weight over the average weight for an untrained individual and tha had only added 1.3 pounds per inch. Now all of the sudden we add that 1.3 + 2 to 7 MORE pounds for some reason?
The extra weight for frame and muscle is already there when multiplying by 3.57
Where does the extra 1.5-6.5 pounds per inch come from?
Make sense?[/quote]

This is all a discussion of 1 lifter at the same height. I’m discussing how to compare the heights and weights of 2 different lifters to have comparable physiques. [/quote]

Aren’t we trying to guesstimate how much Professor X would weigh if he was taller?
If X is 5’10 250pounds how much would he weigh if he was Utah Lamas height of 6’1.
That is what we were talking about.
I said 261ish
X said 280-290
What do you think?

Using X’s numbers that means if UL was X’s height he would be 185-195

553

[quote]steven alex wrote:

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.[/quote]

Professor X should write an article for T-Nation, I bet it would get a record number of hits. I can already imagine the title:

“Combining the body of a powerlifter with the strenght of a bodybuilder”.

The livespill would be epic.

554

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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 %
[/quote]

Then you’re not comprehending what I’m writing.

A non trained person weighs 3 pounds more with an extra inch of height due to the size difference in frames alone. Would the taller person not, in addition to the extra 3 pounds they already carry, have to add a few extra pounds of muscle to look comparable to the shorter lifter?

[/quote]

Think about 1 inch on a ruler and 2 pounds of steak.
Not exactly proportionate.
2 pounds of muscle per extra inch is not realistic.[/quote]

1 extra inch may be 2 or 3 extra pounds of muscle over an entire body. For X, that’s 70 inches not to mention the depth of his body (no homo on that one). We’re not talking about a 1 inch, 2D figure with 2 pounds of muscle squished into a little bit of space.

[quote]Look at those average untrained weights vs Professor X’s weight.
Untrained 5’10 was 161 correct?
That is an untrained weight of 2.3 pounds per inch
Professor X is 5’10 and 250.
That is a trained weight of 3.57 pounds per inch.
Professor X has added roughly 90 pounds of body weight over the average weight for an untrained individual and tha had only added 1.3 pounds per inch. Now all of the sudden we add that 1.3 + 2 to 7 MORE pounds for some reason?
The extra weight for frame and muscle is already there when multiplying by 3.57
Where does the extra 1.5-6.5 pounds per inch come from?
Make sense?[/quote]

This is all a discussion of 1 lifter at the same height. I’m discussing how to compare the heights and weights of 2 different lifters to have comparable physiques. [/quote]

Aren’t we trying to guesstimate how much Professor X would weigh if he was taller?
If X is 5’10 250pounds how much would he weigh if he was Utah Lamas height of 6’1.
That is what we were talking about.
I said 261ish
X said 280-290
What do you think?

Using X’s numbers that means if UL was X’s height he would be 185-195[/quote]

I think UL would be around 205ish (which he would still look great at given his new short height) and I think X would be around 285ish at 6’1", same BF levels he’s at now. I’m giving X more pounds per inch added as compared to what I subtracted for UL because X is carrying more fat and it would take both muscle and fat to stay at the same bodyfat levels.

It’s really all speculation, but my main point was that if you’re comparing what people would weigh at different heights with the same “look” to their physique, it’s got to be more than a 3 lbs per inch difference.

555

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
Again, why even bother to say that the accident would have taken most people out of the gym completely, if not just to portray yourself as more formidable, stronger, better, etc.?[/quote]

Best rethorical question.

556

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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 %
[/quote]

Then you’re not comprehending what I’m writing.

A non trained person weighs 3 pounds more with an extra inch of height due to the size difference in frames alone. Would the taller person not, in addition to the extra 3 pounds they already carry, have to add a few extra pounds of muscle to look comparable to the shorter lifter?

[/quote]

Think about 1 inch on a ruler and 2 pounds of steak.
Not exactly proportionate.
2 pounds of muscle per extra inch is not realistic.[/quote]

1 extra inch may be 2 or 3 extra pounds of muscle over an entire body. For X, that’s 70 inches not to mention the depth of his body (no homo on that one). We’re not talking about a 1 inch, 2D figure with 2 pounds of muscle squished into a little bit of space.

[quote]Look at those average untrained weights vs Professor X’s weight.
Untrained 5’10 was 161 correct?
That is an untrained weight of 2.3 pounds per inch
Professor X is 5’10 and 250.
That is a trained weight of 3.57 pounds per inch.
Professor X has added roughly 90 pounds of body weight over the average weight for an untrained individual and tha had only added 1.3 pounds per inch. Now all of the sudden we add that 1.3 + 2 to 7 MORE pounds for some reason?
The extra weight for frame and muscle is already there when multiplying by 3.57
Where does the extra 1.5-6.5 pounds per inch come from?
Make sense?[/quote]

This is all a discussion of 1 lifter at the same height. I’m discussing how to compare the heights and weights of 2 different lifters to have comparable physiques. [/quote]

Aren’t we trying to guesstimate how much Professor X would weigh if he was taller?
If X is 5’10 250pounds how much would he weigh if he was Utah Lamas height of 6’1.
That is what we were talking about.
I said 261ish
X said 280-290
What do you think?

Using X’s numbers that means if UL was X’s height he would be 185-195[/quote]

I think UL would be around 205ish (which he would still look great at given his new short height) and I think X would be around 285ish at 6’1", same BF levels he’s at now. I’m giving X more pounds per inch added as compared to what I subtracted for UL because X is carrying more fat and it would take both muscle and fat to stay at the same bodyfat levels.

It’s really all speculation, but my main point was that if you’re comparing what people would weigh at different heights with the same “look” to their physique, it’s got to be more than a 3 lbs per inch difference.
[/quote]
Interesting.
+3 inches for X = 35 pounds (even more than the 5-10 pounds that have been suggested
-3 inches for Utah = 19 pounds
Got it

557

[quote]bpick86 wrote:
I am actually a little confused on what exactly yall are arguing about (not sure if same thing) but this might help.
[/quote]

me either. There is nothing to argue about. It has been general knowledge for decades…yet now it is an issue…because I wrote about it.

558

And I can only imagine, back in the old school days of bodybuilding, that grown ass men acted and sounded like a bunch of cackling women at the mall.

When a fellow T-Nation member entered a physique transformation contest at my gym, no one punked him the way I see on this thread, but instead he went on to win 1st place and absolutely kill it. When he asked me for honest feedback on his progress, I gave him my opinion with both the delivery and intent of helping him move in the right direction.

This fuckery between the T-brothers I see is not constructive criticism, but senseless dick waving.

Use each other to make yourselves better.

559

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
And I can only imagine, back in the old school days of bodybuilding, that grown ass men acted and sounded like a bunch of cackling women at the mall.

When a fellow T-Nation member entered a physique transformation contest at my gym, no one punked him the way I see on this thread, but instead he went on to win 1st place and absolutely kill it. When he asked me for honest feedback on his progress, I gave him my opinion with both the delivery and intent of helping him move in the right direction.

This fuckery between the T-brothers I see is not constructive criticism, but senseless dick waving.

Use each other to make yourselves better.
[/quote]

Good post.

I haven’t and will not degrade any other poster here who clearly worked hard to build some serious muscle. No one here was insulted or degraded for their goal. However, in return the insults and childish behavior are being tossed while crying about my “ego”?

Seriously?

I have never seen people try this hard to insult the progress somene else has made while crying as if it was ever done to them.

560

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
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 %
[/quote]

Then you’re not comprehending what I’m writing.

A non trained person weighs 3 pounds more with an extra inch of height due to the size difference in frames alone. Would the taller person not, in addition to the extra 3 pounds they already carry, have to add a few extra pounds of muscle to look comparable to the shorter lifter?

[/quote]

Think about 1 inch on a ruler and 2 pounds of steak.
Not exactly proportionate.
2 pounds of muscle per extra inch is not realistic.[/quote]

1 extra inch may be 2 or 3 extra pounds of muscle over an entire body. For X, that’s 70 inches not to mention the depth of his body (no homo on that one). We’re not talking about a 1 inch, 2D figure with 2 pounds of muscle squished into a little bit of space.

[quote]Look at those average untrained weights vs Professor X’s weight.
Untrained 5’10 was 161 correct?
That is an untrained weight of 2.3 pounds per inch
Professor X is 5’10 and 250.
That is a trained weight of 3.57 pounds per inch.
Professor X has added roughly 90 pounds of body weight over the average weight for an untrained individual and tha had only added 1.3 pounds per inch. Now all of the sudden we add that 1.3 + 2 to 7 MORE pounds for some reason?
The extra weight for frame and muscle is already there when multiplying by 3.57
Where does the extra 1.5-6.5 pounds per inch come from?
Make sense?[/quote]

This is all a discussion of 1 lifter at the same height. I’m discussing how to compare the heights and weights of 2 different lifters to have comparable physiques. [/quote]

Aren’t we trying to guesstimate how much Professor X would weigh if he was taller?
If X is 5’10 250pounds how much would he weigh if he was Utah Lamas height of 6’1.
That is what we were talking about.
I said 261ish
X said 280-290
What do you think?

Using X’s numbers that means if UL was X’s height he would be 185-195[/quote]

I think UL would be around 205ish (which he would still look great at given his new short height) and I think X would be around 285ish at 6’1", same BF levels he’s at now. I’m giving X more pounds per inch added as compared to what I subtracted for UL because X is carrying more fat and it would take both muscle and fat to stay at the same bodyfat levels.

It’s really all speculation, but my main point was that if you’re comparing what people would weigh at different heights with the same “look” to their physique, it’s got to be more than a 3 lbs per inch difference.
[/quote]
Interesting.
+3 inches for X = 35 pounds (even more than the 5-10 pounds that have been suggested
-3 inches for Utah = 19 pounds
Got it[/quote]

I’m under the impression X is 255 which means it’s 30 pounds for X.

And I already explained why I did that. Utah’s weight is decreasing by mostly having a lesser frame and less muscle, X’s weight is increasing by having a larger frame, more muscle and more fat because I think he’s at a significantly higher BF % than Utah.

Again, all speculation but getting the numbers correct is far from my main point. I’m honestly not sure why you’re harping on it, lol.