230-235 with 10% body fat on a 5’10 frame would be a freaky physique.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I was perhaps a little generous when I said 15% – remember what I said about internet bodyfat estimates being retarded? – as he is more than likely closer to 18%. But again, this all depends on the percentage formula used. (I always use a 12 site formula.)
Your “no way if natural” argument is a red herring – whether or not drugs are used wasn’t part of the discussion. [/quote]
Lets continue the guestimating dieting topic if that’s ok?
Assuming the most accurate hypothetical 12 site measurement possible revealed a hypothetical 18% body fat for Professor X.
18% body fat at 255 pounds reveals 209 pounds of lean body mass. That would mean if be hypothetically dieted down to 10% body get without losing any muscle it would be a body weight of 232-235 correct?
Do you still think those dieting numbers are possible in 8 weeks without chemical assistance?
Would you use the same strategy?
Thank you again.[/quote]
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting down without assistance?
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I was perhaps a little generous when I said 15% – remember what I said about internet bodyfat estimates being retarded? – as he is more than likely closer to 18%. But again, this all depends on the percentage formula used. (I always use a 12 site formula.)
Your “no way if natural” argument is a red herring – whether or not drugs are used wasn’t part of the discussion. [/quote]
Lets continue the guestimating dieting topic if that’s ok?
Assuming the most accurate hypothetical 12 site measurement possible revealed a hypothetical 18% body fat for Professor X.
18% body fat at 255 pounds reveals 209 pounds of lean body mass. That would mean if be hypothetically dieted down to 10% body get without losing any muscle it would be a body weight of 232-235 correct?
Do you still think those dieting numbers are possible in 8 weeks without chemical assistance?
Would you use the same strategy?
Thank you again.[/quote]
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting down without assistance?[/quote]
Me or Bryan?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I was perhaps a little generous when I said 15% – remember what I said about internet bodyfat estimates being retarded? – as he is more than likely closer to 18%. But again, this all depends on the percentage formula used. (I always use a 12 site formula.)
Your “no way if natural” argument is a red herring – whether or not drugs are used wasn’t part of the discussion. [/quote]
Lets continue the guestimating dieting topic if that’s ok?
Assuming the most accurate hypothetical 12 site measurement possible revealed a hypothetical 18% body fat for Professor X.
18% body fat at 255 pounds reveals 209 pounds of lean body mass. That would mean if be hypothetically dieted down to 10% body get without losing any muscle it would be a body weight of 232-235 correct?
Do you still think those dieting numbers are possible in 8 weeks without chemical assistance?
Would you use the same strategy?
Thank you again.[/quote]
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting down without assistance?[/quote]
Me or Bryan?[/quote]
You
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I was perhaps a little generous when I said 15% – remember what I said about internet bodyfat estimates being retarded? – as he is more than likely closer to 18%. But again, this all depends on the percentage formula used. (I always use a 12 site formula.)
Your “no way if natural” argument is a red herring – whether or not drugs are used wasn’t part of the discussion. [/quote]
Lets continue the guestimating dieting topic if that’s ok?
Assuming the most accurate hypothetical 12 site measurement possible revealed a hypothetical 18% body fat for Professor X.
18% body fat at 255 pounds reveals 209 pounds of lean body mass. That would mean if be hypothetically dieted down to 10% body get without losing any muscle it would be a body weight of 232-235 correct?
Do you still think those dieting numbers are possible in 8 weeks without chemical assistance?
Would you use the same strategy?
Thank you again.[/quote]
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting down without assistance?[/quote]
Me or Bryan?[/quote]
You[/quote]
I believe that VERY little muscle will be lost during the dieting process if it is done correctly.
It is my personal opinion that most people overestimate their muscled weight and account for water, glycogen and bloat when referring to their muscle weight.
Personally I believe that the loss of weight attributed to cutting carbs and the resulting loss of water bloat is mistake for muscle loss in a lot of cases.
That is just my opinion though and I have no scientific basis behind my reasoning.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I was perhaps a little generous when I said 15% – remember what I said about internet bodyfat estimates being retarded? – as he is more than likely closer to 18%. But again, this all depends on the percentage formula used. (I always use a 12 site formula.)
Your “no way if natural” argument is a red herring – whether or not drugs are used wasn’t part of the discussion. [/quote]
Lets continue the guestimating dieting topic if that’s ok?
Assuming the most accurate hypothetical 12 site measurement possible revealed a hypothetical 18% body fat for Professor X.
18% body fat at 255 pounds reveals 209 pounds of lean body mass. That would mean if be hypothetically dieted down to 10% body get without losing any muscle it would be a body weight of 232-235 correct?
Do you still think those dieting numbers are possible in 8 weeks without chemical assistance?
Would you use the same strategy?
Thank you again.[/quote]
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting down without assistance?[/quote]
Me or Bryan?[/quote]
You[/quote]
I believe that VERY little muscle will be lost during the dieting process if it is done correctly.
It is my personal opinion that most people overestimate their muscled weight and account for water, glycogen and bloat when referring to their muscle weight.
Personally I believe that the loss of weight attributed to cutting carbs and the resulting loss of water bloat is mistake for muscle loss in a lot of cases.
That is just my opinion though and I have no scientific basis behind my reasoning.[/quote]
Sorry, I demand science. Please post a paper by Galileo and/or Einstein supporting your opinion.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I was perhaps a little generous when I said 15% – remember what I said about internet bodyfat estimates being retarded? – as he is more than likely closer to 18%. But again, this all depends on the percentage formula used. (I always use a 12 site formula.)
Your “no way if natural” argument is a red herring – whether or not drugs are used wasn’t part of the discussion. [/quote]
Lets continue the guestimating dieting topic if that’s ok?
Assuming the most accurate hypothetical 12 site measurement possible revealed a hypothetical 18% body fat for Professor X.
18% body fat at 255 pounds reveals 209 pounds of lean body mass. That would mean if be hypothetically dieted down to 10% body get without losing any muscle it would be a body weight of 232-235 correct?
Do you still think those dieting numbers are possible in 8 weeks without chemical assistance?
Would you use the same strategy?
Thank you again.[/quote]
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting down without assistance?[/quote]
Me or Bryan?[/quote]
You[/quote]
I believe that VERY little muscle will be lost during the dieting process if it is done correctly.
It is my personal opinion that most people overestimate their muscled weight and account for water, glycogen and bloat when referring to their muscle weight.
Personally I believe that the loss of weight attributed to cutting carbs and the resulting loss of water bloat is mistake for muscle loss in a lot of cases.
That is just my opinion though and I have no scientific basis behind my reasoning.[/quote]
Sorry, I demand science. Please post a paper by Galileo and/or Einstein supporting your opinion.[/quote]
I do not have any of those. I lose.
What are your thoughts?
Do you think it is reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting without assistance?
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I was perhaps a little generous when I said 15% – remember what I said about internet bodyfat estimates being retarded? – as he is more than likely closer to 18%. But again, this all depends on the percentage formula used. (I always use a 12 site formula.)
Your “no way if natural” argument is a red herring – whether or not drugs are used wasn’t part of the discussion. [/quote]
Lets continue the guestimating dieting topic if that’s ok?
Assuming the most accurate hypothetical 12 site measurement possible revealed a hypothetical 18% body fat for Professor X.
18% body fat at 255 pounds reveals 209 pounds of lean body mass. That would mean if be hypothetically dieted down to 10% body get without losing any muscle it would be a body weight of 232-235 correct?
Do you still think those dieting numbers are possible in 8 weeks without chemical assistance?
Would you use the same strategy?
Thank you again.[/quote]
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting down without assistance?[/quote]
Me or Bryan?[/quote]
You[/quote]
I believe that VERY little muscle will be lost during the dieting process if it is done correctly.
It is my personal opinion that most people overestimate their muscled weight and account for water, glycogen and bloat when referring to their muscle weight.
Personally I believe that the loss of weight attributed to cutting carbs and the resulting loss of water bloat is mistake for muscle loss in a lot of cases.
That is just my opinion though and I have no scientific basis behind my reasoning.[/quote]
Sorry, I demand science. Please post a paper by Galileo and/or Einstein supporting your opinion.[/quote]
I do not have any of those. I lose.
What are your thoughts?
Do you think it is reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting without assistance?[/quote]
No.
I think the amount depends on how fast you lose the weight and how low of a BF% you want. But I don’t think it’s possible to retain all muscle gained. In fact, I would say most people underestimate the amount of fat they are carrying or the amount of muscle lost in the dieting process (or both). Reading through the cutting and competition prep threads in the BB forum has really reinforced this belief.
With regards to your “how fast you lose” it comment, that is why I said “if done correctly” as in “not trying to lose too much too quickly.”
I think we are agreeing. I do not think that, when dieting properly, a lot of “muscle” is lost. Sure, a lot of body weight is lost but I do not think a significant portion of that is muscle tissue. Not at all.
This is all assuming the person was training and dieting properly and responsibly from the 15-18% range down to 10%
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, what’s my bodyfat? How many weeks out am I?
Bulk or cut?
Am I holding back my progress being too lean?
Trololol…[/quote]
how did i miss this, looking very good duce. great job! i am jelly.
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
So at 300 lbs you were doing HS presses and leg presses. Do you feel the extra 5 inches of fat on your waist helped you on these lifts??
[/quote]
Maybe with legs, yes. I was also still doing dumbbells for presses through some of that time so yes, it likely helped with that as well…and lets face it, lifting heavy dumbbells into place for a lift takes full body strength and not just “strong pecs”.
That wasn’t specifically why I was 300lbs. That was based on the fact that I was more interested in gaining muscle than losing body fat at the time. I already knew what my long term goal was…and most guys who look like me at 250 have been heavier.[/quote]
i am going to agree with x on this basic thought, analyze it “scientifically” all you want, but i KNOW if you get bigger you get stronger.
IF you are working hard.
i cant tell you how many times i would reach a plateu on certain lifts, and to break through i would eat 3 peanut butter sandwiches and wash down with a protein powder mixed in a gallon of chocolate milk right before beditime. this was my routine when i wanted to put on a few lbs to get past a sticking point.
it worked, i cant explain scientifically why, but it worked. and it worked for the dozens of other guys i trained with.
their is a reason that in every typoe of strength sport the most weight being moved is in the heavyweight class guys body fat % be damned. [/quote]
See, I think this part of the topic is pretty obvious. You gain more weight, SOME of it is bound to be muscle. I recall a few years back reading a study about these morbidly obese people who did NOT exercise at all, and on average, when they gained weight, about 20-30% of it was muscle. So you could reasonably expect that someone gaining weight even on a shitty diet will gain some more muscle than that if training hard; BUT the real question is, as a natty, how much can you expect to hold on to when you diet down, and how drastically is that impacted by the amount of fat you must lose, and the time period in which you must lose it?
I think that long run, it honestly just depends on the person, but I have NOT seen nearly enough people, natties specifically, that got HUGE and strong, then a few years down the road, were better off than their counterparts that stayed at least relatively lean the whole time. There’s always some exceptions on both sides (some who got really muscular while getting chubs, and some who stayed leaner), the hard part to prove is whether the extra fat gain actually helped, and whether staying leaner hindered.
I tend to opt on the leaner side of things.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
10% is no where near contest shape – unless you want to finish in last place.
10% is lean, average, athletic male – visible linea alba (not “in the right light abs”) and usually some clear definition. That’s it.
[/quote]
What BF% would you guess, if you don’t know for sure, you are in your avatar picture?[/quote]
That was around 7%. I had my BF done 7 days prior (at the end of a diet) by Poliquin at a seminar, and I was 6%.
I think I would’ve needed another month or so to get truly contest lean.
I miss being in that condition. Don’t miss the diet and cardio though!
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I was perhaps a little generous when I said 15% – remember what I said about internet bodyfat estimates being retarded? – as he is more than likely closer to 18%. But again, this all depends on the percentage formula used. (I always use a 12 site formula.)
Your “no way if natural” argument is a red herring – whether or not drugs are used wasn’t part of the discussion. [/quote]
Lets continue the guestimating dieting topic if that’s ok?
Assuming the most accurate hypothetical 12 site measurement possible revealed a hypothetical 18% body fat for Professor X.
18% body fat at 255 pounds reveals 209 pounds of lean body mass. That would mean if be hypothetically dieted down to 10% body get without losing any muscle it would be a body weight of 232-235 correct?
Do you still think those dieting numbers are possible in 8 weeks without chemical assistance?
Would you use the same strategy?
Thank you again.[/quote]
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting down without assistance?[/quote]
To get to 10%, probably not much.
To get to 5%, even the pros often lose some. Too low calories and too much cardio for too long.
That said, I hate wading into the “so if I’m 250 at 15% will I be blah blah blah at 8%” debate because it just never works that way.
Reason being, every single bodybuilder who ever told me that they would be ripped at a certain weight, when they finally did it and dieted down, was 10, 20, sometimes even 30 pounds lighter than what they guesstimated.
Look at some of Shelby’s many success stories. Average, not that fat off-season guys losing 40 or 50 pounds to get diced.
As they say, its an art, not a science.
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]Bryan Krahn wrote:
I was perhaps a little generous when I said 15% – remember what I said about internet bodyfat estimates being retarded? – as he is more than likely closer to 18%. But again, this all depends on the percentage formula used. (I always use a 12 site formula.)
Your “no way if natural” argument is a red herring – whether or not drugs are used wasn’t part of the discussion. [/quote]
Lets continue the guestimating dieting topic if that’s ok?
Assuming the most accurate hypothetical 12 site measurement possible revealed a hypothetical 18% body fat for Professor X.
18% body fat at 255 pounds reveals 209 pounds of lean body mass. That would mean if be hypothetically dieted down to 10% body get without losing any muscle it would be a body weight of 232-235 correct?
Do you still think those dieting numbers are possible in 8 weeks without chemical assistance?
Would you use the same strategy?
Thank you again.[/quote]
Do you think it’s reasonable to assume that no muscle will be lost while dieting down without assistance?[/quote]
To get to 10%, probably not much.
To get to 5%, even the pros often lose some. Too low calories and too much cardio for too long.
That said, I hate wading into the “so if I’m 250 at 15% will I be blah blah blah at 8%” debate because it just never works that way.
Reason being, every single bodybuilder who ever told me that they would be ripped at a certain weight, when they finally did it and dieted down, was 10, 20, sometimes even 30 pounds lighter than what they guesstimated.
Look at some of Shelby’s many success stories. Average, not that fat off-season guys losing 40 or 50 pounds to get diced.
As they say, its an art, not a science.
[/quote]
Thank you for your input.
Your examples of guys ending up much lighter than they thought or Shelby’s success stories of significant weight losses in order to be diced is where I personally think that the “you will lose a lot of muscle while dieting” talk comes from.
Like I said before, I do not think that this necessarily is from lost muscle tissue, although this certainly can be the case, but is more due to muscle tissue that isn’t as full and “bloated” as before.
This is all very interesting stuff.
6-7% in that avatar!!! wow, I do not think that I would miss the dieting and cardio required for that either 
One point I think people aren?t considering is that excess calories do NOT necessarily mean lean tissue has a surplus of nutrition. It is actually hormonally possible to eat an excess of calories while starving lean tissue. Generally speaking, a person that bad off is in a diseased state, BUT it is probably a continuum.
Today?s grossly obese people with diabetes can actually have lean tissue that can?t get the excess calories out of the blood stream.
Gaining fat you are slowly tipping the scales toward fat tissue preferentially using the calories you eat. The question really should be, where is the point at which more calories and fat gain just isn?t worth it.
Again, this is going to be highly individualized both in preference and physiology. But it seems there is an attitude among some that more calories equals more nutrition available for muscle, and that just isn?t true. There is a balance. There are diminishing and at a point even negative returns on calories.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]heavythrower wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
So at 300 lbs you were doing HS presses and leg presses. Do you feel the extra 5 inches of fat on your waist helped you on these lifts??
[/quote]
Maybe with legs, yes. I was also still doing dumbbells for presses through some of that time so yes, it likely helped with that as well…and lets face it, lifting heavy dumbbells into place for a lift takes full body strength and not just “strong pecs”.
That wasn’t specifically why I was 300lbs. That was based on the fact that I was more interested in gaining muscle than losing body fat at the time. I already knew what my long term goal was…and most guys who look like me at 250 have been heavier.[/quote]
i am going to agree with x on this basic thought, analyze it “scientifically” all you want, but i KNOW if you get bigger you get stronger.
IF you are working hard.
i cant tell you how many times i would reach a plateu on certain lifts, and to break through i would eat 3 peanut butter sandwiches and wash down with a protein powder mixed in a gallon of chocolate milk right before beditime. this was my routine when i wanted to put on a few lbs to get past a sticking point.
it worked, i cant explain scientifically why, but it worked. and it worked for the dozens of other guys i trained with.
their is a reason that in every typoe of strength sport the most weight being moved is in the heavyweight class guys body fat % be damned. [/quote]
See, I think this part of the topic is pretty obvious. You gain more weight, SOME of it is bound to be muscle. I recall a few years back reading a study about these morbidly obese people who did NOT exercise at all, and on average, when they gained weight, about 20-30% of it was muscle. So you could reasonably expect that someone gaining weight even on a shitty diet will gain some more muscle than that if training hard; BUT the real question is, as a natty, how much can you expect to hold on to when you diet down, and how drastically is that impacted by the amount of fat you must lose, and the time period in which you must lose it?
I think that long run, it honestly just depends on the person, but I have NOT seen nearly enough people, natties specifically, that got HUGE and strong, then a few years down the road, were better off than their counterparts that stayed at least relatively lean the whole time. There’s always some exceptions on both sides (some who got really muscular while getting chubs, and some who stayed leaner), the hard part to prove is whether the extra fat gain actually helped, and whether staying leaner hindered.
I tend to opt on the leaner side of things. [/quote]
i dont disagree with any of this, i am sure you are relieved. lol
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I think that long run, it honestly just depends on the person, but I have NOT seen nearly enough people, natties specifically, that got HUGE and strong, then a few years down the road, were better off than their counterparts that stayed at least relatively lean the whole time. [/quote]
I haven’t seen nearly enough people who even take this as seriously as I do in the gym as far as year upon year in the gym consistency…so saying you saw few who got even bigger doesn’t surprise me.
I mean, seriously, there may be thousands of people logging in but only 50 of those may have the genetics to actually gain any more muscle than average.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
One point I think people aren?t considering is that excess calories do NOT necessarily mean lean tissue has a surplus of nutrition. It is actually hormonally possible to eat an excess of calories while starving lean tissue. Generally speaking, a person that bad off is in a diseased state, BUT it is probably a continuum.[/quote]
If someone is LOSING muscle in a caloric surplus, they have a disease process going on or are bed ridden. That isn’t a “continuum”.
That would depend more on the lifestyle of that individual alone. 300lbs would be too much for me right now at all. It was not too much for me at the time due to many reasons from location to overall stress.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
One point I think people aren?t considering is that excess calories do NOT necessarily mean lean tissue has a surplus of nutrition. It is actually hormonally possible to eat an excess of calories while starving lean tissue. Generally speaking, a person that bad off is in a diseased state, BUT it is probably a continuum.[/quote]
If someone is LOSING muscle in a caloric surplus, they have a disease process going on or are bed ridden. That isn’t a “continuum”.
That would depend more on the lifestyle of that individual alone. 300lbs would be too much for me right now at all. It was not too much for me at the time due to many reasons from location to overall stress.[/quote]
I never mentioned losing muscle.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I think that long run, it honestly just depends on the person, but I have NOT seen nearly enough people, natties specifically, that got HUGE and strong, then a few years down the road, were better off than their counterparts that stayed at least relatively lean the whole time. [/quote]
I haven’t seen nearly enough people who even take this as seriously as I do in the gym as far as year upon year in the gym consistency…so saying you saw few who got even bigger doesn’t surprise me.
I mean, seriously, there may be thousands of people logging in but only 50 of those may have the genetics to actually gain any more muscle than average.[/quote]
The small controlled sample size, and the long time period of observation necessary, are what make a proper, beginning to end study of the subject so difficult. But I have kept tabs on a good deal of friends and acquaintances over a period of 5+ years, and I have yet to see any distinguishable benefit that really seemed to come from getting overly chubby (aka over 15% or so).