[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you were 270 lbs, 5’ 10", and %20 you’d be at 31.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
Show me a pic of someone that fits that description. [/quote]
Vytautas Lalas is like a 40…
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you were 270 lbs, 5’ 10", and %20 you’d be at 31.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
Show me a pic of someone that fits that description. [/quote]
Vytautas Lalas is like a 40…[/quote]
And you think completely natural? That guy is a beast, I should add! Holy Shit!
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you were 270 lbs, 5’ 10", and %20 you’d be at 31.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
Show me a pic of someone that fits that description. [/quote]
Vytautas Lalas is like a 40…[/quote]
And you think completely natural? That guy is a beast, I should add! Holy Shit![/quote]
Rofl, yeah he’s natural; he just ate higher quality ramen noodles than the rest of us.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you were 270 lbs, 5’ 10", and %20 you’d be at 31.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
Show me a pic of someone that fits that description. [/quote]
Vytautas Lalas is like a 40…[/quote]
And you think completely natural? That guy is a beast, I should add! Holy Shit![/quote]
Rofl, yeah he’s natural; he just ate higher quality ramen noodles than the rest of us.[/quote]
Oriental Chicken flavor!!
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[/quote]
26.7
26.4 adjusted
@ 50 years old[/quote]
195 lbs
8%
5’ 9"
And what numbers did you put in for that?[/quote]
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[/quote]
26.7
26.4 adjusted
@ 50 years old[/quote]
195 lbs
8%
5’ 9"
And what numbers did you put in for that?[/quote]
[/quote]
Well, thats the problem. Thanks for the clarification.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[/quote]
26.7
26.4 adjusted
@ 50 years old[/quote]
195 lbs
8%
5’ 9"
And what numbers did you put in for that?[/quote]
[/quote]
8% on a 50 yr old looks nothing like 8% on a 20 yr old. People develop more visceral fat as they age no matter how little subcutaneous fat they have. for example, a skin caliper test with a pectoral measurement of 5mm, abdomen 7mm and thigh 8mm which is extremely lean calculates at 8% for the 50 yr old, 6.4% for a 35 yr old, and 4.8% for a 20 yr old.
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[/quote]
26.7
26.4 adjusted
@ 50 years old[/quote]
195 lbs
8%
5’ 9"
And what numbers did you put in for that?[/quote]
[/quote]
8% on a 50 yr old looks nothing like 8% on a 20 yr old. People develop more visceral fat as they age no matter how little subcutaneous fat they have. for example, a skin caliper test with a pectoral measurement of 5mm, abdomen 7mm and thigh 8mm which is extremely lean calculates at 8% for the 50 yr old, 6.4% for a 35 yr old, and 4.8% for a 20 yr old. [/quote]
Don’t try teach a vet when you yourself aren’t one. I believe those numbers he put up. Try going through some of his posts and finding his pics.
BCT is a beast.
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[/quote]
26.7
26.4 adjusted
@ 50 years old[/quote]
195 lbs
8%
5’ 9"
And what numbers did you put in for that?[/quote]
[/quote]
8% on a 50 yr old looks nothing like 8% on a 20 yr old. People develop more visceral fat as they age no matter how little subcutaneous fat they have. for example, a skin caliper test with a pectoral measurement of 5mm, abdomen 7mm and thigh 8mm which is extremely lean calculates at 8% for the 50 yr old, 6.4% for a 35 yr old, and 4.8% for a 20 yr old. [/quote]
I understand how it works and take that into consideration. I always slant the readings and calculation against the the goal, not in favor of it.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Cool, I got calipered at Utah State by one of their athletic trainers at 11%, and then got a hydrostatic number of 15% about an hour later. I was over the 25 range and the new number brought me back under.[/quote]
When was this? Recent?
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Cool, I got calipered at Utah State by one of their athletic trainers at 11%, and then got a hydrostatic number of 15% about an hour later. I was over the FFMI 25 range and the new number brought me back under.[/quote]
When was this? Recent?[/quote]
October, pre-mono.
[quote]gregron wrote:
BCT is a beast.[/quote]
X about 1,000
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Cool, I got calipered at Utah State by one of their athletic trainers at 11%, and then got a hydrostatic number of 15% about an hour later. I was over the FFMI 25 range and the new number brought me back under.[/quote]
When was this? Recent?[/quote]
October, pre-mono.[/quote]
Do you have any pictures from that time? A photo to accompany those numbers would be interesting.
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you were 270 lbs, 5’ 10", and %20 you’d be at 31.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
Show me a pic of someone that fits that description. [/quote]
I won’t post a picture of someone with those stats, but there are videos of them on youtube performing and you can bet every dollar you have they will never be making a run for any crossfit title
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you were 270 lbs, 5’ 10", and %20 you’d be at 31.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
Show me a pic of someone that fits that description. [/quote]
I won’t post a picture of someone with those stats, but there are videos of them on youtube performing and you can bet every dollar you have they will never be making a run for any crossfit title[/quote]
What about making a lunge for the title?
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you were 270 lbs, 5’ 10", and %20 you’d be at 31.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
Show me a pic of someone that fits that description. [/quote]
I won’t post a picture of someone with those stats, but there are videos of them on youtube performing and you can bet every dollar you have they will never be making a run for any crossfit title[/quote]
What about making a lunge for the title?[/quote]
Funniest thing you’ve ever said, Greg.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you were 270 lbs, 5’ 10", and %20 you’d be at 31.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
Show me a pic of someone that fits that description. [/quote]
I won’t post a picture of someone with those stats, but there are videos of them on youtube performing and you can bet every dollar you have they will never be making a run for any crossfit title[/quote]
What about making a lunge for the title?[/quote]
HaHa. No way! The guy I’m talking about doesn’t know how lunge
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]mbdix wrote:
[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
[quote]rrjc5488 wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
If you were 270 lbs, 5’ 10", and %20 you’d be at 31.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL[/quote]
Show me a pic of someone that fits that description. [/quote]
I won’t post a picture of someone with those stats, but there are videos of them on youtube performing and you can bet every dollar you have they will never be making a run for any crossfit title[/quote]
What about making a lunge for the title?[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHA
What about CT? He’s natural and he’s got to be way over 25.
I think the study they quote looses a lot of validity in view of the ever improving training and nutrition/supplementation strategies,