Meathead Camaraderie

Training
941

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Not heavy triple but JM has posted on them and they sound terribly inaccurate

942

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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]

I can see them and like how I look.[/quote]

X ray vision to see through the layers of fat.

943

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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]

Not trying to be a dick. But I’ve seen your videos from CO, and I’ve actually trained with HeavyTriple IRL. He carries just as much muscle as you, dude.

944

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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]

Not trying to be a dick. But I’ve seen your videos from CO, and I’ve actually trained with HeavyTriple IRL. He carries just as much muscle as you, dude. [/quote]

Any vids u saw are 3 years old and I weighed 254lbs in it…so that is doubtful but you are entitled to your opinion.

945

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Not heavy triple but JM has posted on them and they sound terribly inaccurate [/quote]
Which one?
Or both?
They seem inaccurate to me but I have no experience with either

946

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Not heavy triple but JM has posted on them and they sound terribly inaccurate [/quote]
Which one?
Or both?
They seem inaccurate to me but I have no experience with either [/quote]

Both

947

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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]

Not trying to be a dick. But I’ve seen your videos from CO, and I’ve actually trained with HeavyTriple IRL. He carries just as much muscle as you, dude. [/quote]

Any vids u saw are 3 years old and I weighed 254lbs in it…so that is doubtful but you are entitled to your opinion.[/quote]

3 years old?

948

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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]

Not trying to be a dick. But I’ve seen your videos from CO, and I’ve actually trained with HeavyTriple IRL. He carries just as much muscle as you, dude. [/quote]

Any vids u saw are 3 years old and I weighed 254lbs in it…so that is doubtful but you are entitled to your opinion.[/quote]

3 years old?
[/quote]

yes. Surprised?

949

They were also after the car accident so I had been bigger.

950

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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]

Not trying to be a dick. But I’ve seen your videos from CO, and I’ve actually trained with HeavyTriple IRL. He carries just as much muscle as you, dude. [/quote]

Any vids u saw are 3 years old and I weighed 254lbs in it…so that is doubtful but you are entitled to your opinion.[/quote]

3 years old?
[/quote]

yes. Surprised?[/quote]

yeah cause they are dated as the likes of 8/10/11, indicating it was under 2 years ago?

951

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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]

Not trying to be a dick. But I’ve seen your videos from CO, and I’ve actually trained with HeavyTriple IRL. He carries just as much muscle as you, dude. [/quote]

Any vids u saw are 3 years old and I weighed 254lbs in it…so that is doubtful but you are entitled to your opinion.[/quote]

I mean you’ve been training for a long ass time, clearly advanced. I don’t feel 3 years you’re going to put on THAT much more mass. Maybe 5 lbs of LBM? In no way is that an insult, just you’re advanced, not going to be putting on 15 lbs of muscle after having trained for more then a decade. lol

All I’m saying is HT is in the same realm of size as you, and he’s well versed in this stuff. Has his masters in something like biomechanics or something, does the bodyfat testing consistently. Just saying he has credibility. And he’s likely speaking from a place he’s been (heavier and thought he was leaner then he was).

952

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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.[/quote]

Oh? So what were they using as the gold standard to determine the bodyfat of the population set the equations are based on?

A simple “I have no education in this methodology” would suffice.

953

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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?[/quote]

The bodpod in our lab was no better than handheld or skinfold testing. In theory, the bodpod should have been better than the other methods, but ours was just too old. Handhelds aren’t much more inaccurate than skinfold, actually. The error is around 3% as opposed to 2.5% for skinfolds. I’ve used a method of bioelectrical impedence that passes through the whole body (sort of) as well, and the accuracy was similar.

They all run into the same problem, ultimately, which is that visceral fat is being estimated. That’s where a bodpod SHOULD be better, but ours, again, wasn’t. And as I alluded to above, the bodyfat estimate in skinfold testing and handhelds comes from a data set programmed into the device in question.

954

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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?[/quote]

The bodpod in our lab was no better than handheld or skinfold testing. In theory, the bodpod should have been better than the other methods, but ours was just too old. Handhelds aren’t much more inaccurate than skinfold, actually. The error is around 3% as opposed to 2.5% for skinfolds. I’ve used a method of bioelectrical impedence that passes through the whole body (sort of) as well, and the accuracy was similar.

They all run into the same problem, ultimately, which is that visceral fat is being estimated. That’s where a bodpod SHOULD be better, but ours, again, wasn’t. And as I alluded to above, the bodyfat estimate in skinfold testing and handhelds comes from a data set programmed into the device in question.[/quote]

Would you say dexa is the best ?

955

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

All I’m saying is HT is in the same realm of size as you, and he’s well versed in this stuff. Has his masters in something like biomechanics or something, does the bodyfat testing consistently. Just saying he has credibility. And he’s likely speaking from a place he’s been (heavier and thought he was leaner then he was).[/quote]

Last line rings pretty loud, my friend. I was measured at 15% until I measured it via hydrostatic weighing, then it jumped to 18. These measurements just don’t do well with muscular people, unfortunately.

Next time you’re here you should go to LAC with me…much bigger/stronger/leaner (chuckle) people there than at the university gyms.

956

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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?[/quote]

The bodpod in our lab was no better than handheld or skinfold testing. In theory, the bodpod should have been better than the other methods, but ours was just too old. Handhelds aren’t much more inaccurate than skinfold, actually. The error is around 3% as opposed to 2.5% for skinfolds. I’ve used a method of bioelectrical impedence that passes through the whole body (sort of) as well, and the accuracy was similar.

They all run into the same problem, ultimately, which is that visceral fat is being estimated. That’s where a bodpod SHOULD be better, but ours, again, wasn’t. And as I alluded to above, the bodyfat estimate in skinfold testing and handhelds comes from a data set programmed into the device in question.[/quote]

Would you say dexa is the best ?[/quote]

I don’t have any experience with it, actually. It wasn’t in the curriculum when I was there, but is now (that was 2 years ago…shit moves quick). I believe it’s comparable to UW weighing. That assumes that load cell you use in UWW is accurately calibrated, in addition to device used to measure residual lung volume. So really it’s probably the easier method to obtaining the best accuracy.

957

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
yeah cause they are dated as the likes of 8/10/11, indicating it was under 2 years ago?[/quote]
lol

958

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]Smashingweights wrote:

[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?[/quote]

The bodpod in our lab was no better than handheld or skinfold testing. In theory, the bodpod should have been better than the other methods, but ours was just too old. Handhelds aren’t much more inaccurate than skinfold, actually. The error is around 3% as opposed to 2.5% for skinfolds. I’ve used a method of bioelectrical impedence that passes through the whole body (sort of) as well, and the accuracy was similar.

They all run into the same problem, ultimately, which is that visceral fat is being estimated. That’s where a bodpod SHOULD be better, but ours, again, wasn’t. And as I alluded to above, the bodyfat estimate in skinfold testing and handhelds comes from a data set programmed into the device in question.[/quote]

Would you say dexa is the best ?[/quote]

I don’t have any experience with it, actually. It wasn’t in the curriculum when I was there, but is now (that was 2 years ago…shit moves quick). I believe it’s comparable to UW weighing. That assumes that load cell you use in UWW is accurately calibrated, in addition to device used to measure residual lung volume. So really it’s probably the easier method to obtaining the best accuracy.[/quote]
Very cool.
Thank you.
Obviously skin fold is the “best” option with regards to accuracy and easy/convenience.
It is not the easiest and not the most accurate but is decent at both.
Would you say, if the tester is extremely competent, that it can be close (within 2-3%) and is a good tool for measuring progress?

959

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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.[/quote]

Oh? So what were they using as the gold standard to determine the bodyfat of the population set the equations are based on?

A simple “I have no education in this methodology” would suffice.[/quote]

You can bet that if a percentage was known in the era of the 60’s and 70’s it was a caliper test, not under water weighing.

960

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Spidey22 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:

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]

Not trying to be a dick. But I’ve seen your videos from CO, and I’ve actually trained with HeavyTriple IRL. He carries just as much muscle as you, dude. [/quote]

Any vids u saw are 3 years old and I weighed 254lbs in it…so that is doubtful but you are entitled to your opinion.[/quote]

I mean you’ve been training for a long ass time, clearly advanced. I don’t feel 3 years you’re going to put on THAT much more mass. Maybe 5 lbs of LBM? In no way is that an insult, just you’re advanced, not going to be putting on 15 lbs of muscle after having trained for more then a decade. lol

All I’m saying is HT is in the same realm of size as you, and he’s well versed in this stuff. Has his masters in something like biomechanics or something, does the bodyfat testing consistently. Just saying he has credibility. And he’s likely speaking from a place he’s been (heavier and thought he was leaner then he was).[/quote]

I lost muscle mass after an accident. I think I have written that at least 3 times today alone at least.

I would also disagree with him being in the same “realm of size” as me but you can believe what you want.

he does not have credibility if he claims that people in the freaking 60’s were getting under water weighed for casual body fat tests.