You just tried to tell me how much I would weigh dieted down. Wouldn’t that have something to do with how much I weigh now???
??? Dude, I am 5’10". If I have to get to to 220lbs to me shredded, do you realize how big that is at my height?[/quote]
You won’t be shredded at 220, more like 190, or (gasp), a bit lower. Shredded is 5 to 7%.
To be moderately lean, you’d probably be less than 220, PERHAPS 210 or 215 or so.
[/quote]
Nothing shows that to be true. If I am showing my abs coming at over 250lbs, why would I need to lose another 50 to be “moderately lean”?
No offense, but I take much issue with what you come up with as far as numbers.
Maybe spend less time trying to take away from the gains people make. You spend way too much time on that.[/quote]
I (and most others here) think that would in fact be the case. Since you’re so intent on arguing, why not cut down and see? Actions speak louder than words.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
You will have to be 220 just be mid double digits of bf. you will not be shredded above 200
[/quote]
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
You won’t be shredded at 220, more like 190, or (gasp), a bit lower. Shredded is 5 to 7%.
To be moderately lean, you’d probably be less than 220, PERHAPS 210 or 215 or so.
[/quote]
Save your breath you guys.
Someone who has never done what it takes to be lean won’t grasp it.
Look at HeavyThrowers thread.
That guy is a monster and his coaches are projecting him to be 170-180 shredded and he is on RX’ed TRT/GH
More productive posts about the Comraderie of meatheads.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
You will have to be 220 just be mid double digits of bf. you will not be shredded above 200
[/quote]
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
You won’t be shredded at 220, more like 190, or (gasp), a bit lower. Shredded is 5 to 7%.
To be moderately lean, you’d probably be less than 220, PERHAPS 210 or 215 or so.
[/quote]
Save your breath you guys.
Someone who has never done what it takes to be lean won’t grasp it.
Look at HeavyThrowers thread.
That guy is a monster and his coaches are projecting him to be 170-180 shredded and he is on RX’ed TRT/GH
More productive posts about the Comraderie of meatheads.[/quote]
I (and most others here) think that would in fact be the case. Since you’re so intent on arguing, why not cut down and see? Actions speak louder than words.
[/quote]
So intent on arguing?
I see people here saying completely false things…like someone telling people to gain 50lbs of fat for no reason.
I weigh more than 250lbs right now…but to say I would have to lose 50lbs from the previous pics I have shown to be “moderately lean” is ridiculous.
5’10 190 ripped is “fucking swole” too.
You seem to see weight in absence of height.
Not only that, but you have no idea if that’s low balling because you have never been lean.
I would take his coaches (who coach people’s training and nutrition IRL for $) estimations over someone else’s, doctor or not.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
5’10 190 ripped is “fucking swole” too.
You seem to see weight in absence of height.[/quote]
Actually, I don’t. If I am 15% at around 250 when I was measured, why would I need to drop that low?
Granted, it could happen if muscle is lost…but to claim that it has to is ridiculous.
[quote]
Not only that, but you have no idea if that’s low balling because you have never been lean.
I would take his coaches (who coach people’s training and nutrition IRL for $) estimations over someone else’s, doctor or not.[/quote]
I said it was low balling FOR HEAVYTHROWER. In other words, they gave a weight on the low end of an estimation. It does not mean they made a wrong estimate so what you wrote here wasn’t needed.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
5’10 190 ripped is “fucking swole” too.
You seem to see weight in absence of height.
Not only that, but you have no idea if that’s low balling because you have never been lean.
I would take his coaches (who coach people’s training and nutrition IRL for $ and are very successful at it) estimations over someone else’s, doctor or not.[/quote]
You just tried to tell me how much I would weigh dieted down. Wouldn’t that have something to do with how much I weigh now???
??? Dude, I am 5’10". If I have to get to to 220lbs to me shredded, do you realize how big that is at my height?[/quote]
You will have to be 220 just be mid double digits of bf. you will not be shredded above 200
[/quote]
Really?
I just got body fat tested about 2 months ago but somehow your idea makes more sense?[/quote]
Multiple people explained to you before you ever got this alleged test that a caliper reading is a shitty method of testing bodyfat for someone carrying as much muscle and fat as you (that was a compliment). As far as I know, you’ve yet to divulge how many sites were measured, which would also make a big difference.
And assuming you got a 7-site (or 12, Brick?), you still didn’t measure your bodyfat. You had skinfolds measured, and those numbers were then plugged into a series of equations based on a population set that doesn’t include many people like you (hence the error…since you like to talk about how science-minded you are). That population set would have been measured with underwater weighing, something you felt the need to put in quotes the last time I mentioned it to you. You then got an estimate of your bodyfat, which would almost certainly be lower than your actual bodyfat. Again, this comes from someone who has actually measured the bodyfats of muscular/fat people via this method.
Moral of the story: You aren’t as lean as you think, and until you take it upon yourself to get a real test or simply stop pretending to know how much muscle you are carrying, people will continue to point this out.
Moral of the story: You aren’t as lean as you think,[/quote]
Who cares? I don’t care how lean you think I am. I care about having really big muscles and looking good. I did that. That is all that really matters.
It is like it hurts to admit I may have gained more muscle than many here. This ranting about what my specific body fat is makes no sense considering I am ok with it.
Moral of the story: You aren’t as lean as you think,[/quote]
Who cares? I don’t care how lean you think I am. I care about having really big muscles and looking good. I did that. That is all that really matters.
It is like it hurts to admit I may have gained more muscle than many here. This ranting about what my specific body fat is makes no sense considering I am ok with it.[/quote]
In typical Brofessor X fashion, ignores the rest of the post.
In typical Brofessor X fashion, I’ll respond with a condescending, “Why is that?”
In typical Brofessor X fashion, ignores the rest of the post.
[/quote]
That would be because it was filled with false info…like[quote]That population set would have been measured with underwater weighing, something you felt the need to put in quotes the last time I mentioned it to you. [/quote]
Most of those people tested before the 1980’s were by no means tested by underwater weighing…which calls into question the data set itself.
Moral of the story: You aren’t as lean as you think,[/quote]
Who cares? I don’t care how lean you think I am. I care about having really big muscles and looking good. I did that. That is all that really matters.
It is like it hurts to admit I may have gained more muscle than many here. This ranting about what my specific body fat is makes no sense considering I am ok with it.[/quote]
Who cares how big your muscles are if you can’t see them?
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
Multiple people explained to you before you ever got this alleged test that a caliper reading is a shitty method of testing bodyfat for someone carrying as much muscle and fat as you (that was a compliment). As far as I know, you’ve yet to divulge how many sites were measured, which would also make a big difference.
And assuming you got a 7-site (or 12, Brick?), you still didn’t measure your bodyfat. You had skinfolds measured, and those numbers were then plugged into a series of equations based on a population set that doesn’t include many people like you (hence the error…since you like to talk about how science-minded you are). That population set would have been measured with underwater weighing, something you felt the need to put in quotes the last time I mentioned it to you. You then got an estimate of your bodyfat, which would almost certainly be lower than your actual bodyfat. Again, this comes from someone who has actually measured the bodyfats of muscular/fat people via this method.
Moral of the story: You aren’t as lean as you think, and until you take it upon yourself to get a real test or simply stop pretending to know how much muscle you are carrying, people will continue to point this out.[/quote]
Save your breath HeavyTriple
Since you work in that field I have a question for you:
What are your thoughts on BodPods and the hand held BF measuring machines?
Moral of the story: You aren’t as lean as you think,[/quote]
Who cares? I don’t care how lean you think I am. I care about having really big muscles and looking good. I did that. That is all that really matters.
It is like it hurts to admit I may have gained more muscle than many here. This ranting about what my specific body fat is makes no sense considering I am ok with it.[/quote]
Who cares how big your muscles are if you can’t see them?[/quote]
