Think You Are Big But Just Fat

Training
381

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

But let’s look for a moment at someone starting out, at an average bf%. I know that when I started lifting, I weighed about 150 lbs, and was pretty soft. Sure I ran track, played hockey, BS/Non strength sports, but an average looking guy.

So 150 lbs, at an optimistic bodyfat level of 15% yields about 127.5 lbs of Non-Fat mass (you can break it down into skeletal weight if you want, I don’t particularly care to).

Keeping in line with the same level of bodyfat at 15%, to increase scale weight 80 lbs while body comp remains constant, we’re looking at 244 lbs (with a fat-free scale weight of 207.5 lbs).

Now I don’t know about you (obviously), but to me, 244 lbs, at 15% bodyfat, is staggering, especially if you’re of average height, and actually started off at a healthy (non-underfed) weight and body composition.

I’m by no means saying that 244 lbs at 15% is impossible, it most certainly is, BUT, for someone to start 80 lbs of muscle mass less, in a healthy state,… well, I haven’t seen it, and apparently people with a scientific interest in the sport, who have studied it’s history as their profession haven’t either. (Far be it from me to argue with a dentist on an internet forum though.)

And of course Brick was discussing natural bodybuilders. We’d be idiots if we pretended that chemical means to augment the body’s natural ability to recover and synthesize new tissue didn’t change the game.

S[/quote]

Uh…good job at avoiding the main point…that ignoring the entire population that is NOT “natural bodybuilding” leaves incomplete data.

That is all there is to it. You can’t even argue that. I didn’t mention what I did to start an argument or for any “hornet’s nest”. I also know I certainly don’t have the best genetics…and Kingbeef doesn’t have the best genetics…therefore, someone is able to do way more than both of us.

To even set the limit at “80lbs” and then tell newbs it is a limit is illogical and biased.

Sure, few people can do it…and probably far less who could would be on a website like this discussing it…but to state that because “natural bodybuilders” couldn’t do it that all people are limited is just bad science.

382

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

But let’s look for a moment at someone starting out, at an average bf%. I know that when I started lifting, I weighed about 150 lbs, and was pretty soft. Sure I ran track, played hockey, BS/Non strength sports, but an average looking guy.

So 150 lbs, at an optimistic bodyfat level of 15% yields about 127.5 lbs of Non-Fat mass (you can break it down into skeletal weight if you want, I don’t particularly care to).

Keeping in line with the same level of bodyfat at 15%, to increase scale weight 80 lbs while body comp remains constant, we’re looking at 244 lbs (with a fat-free scale weight of 207.5 lbs).

Now I don’t know about you (obviously), but to me, 244 lbs, at 15% bodyfat, is staggering, especially if you’re of average height, and actually started off at a healthy (non-underfed) weight and body composition.

I’m by no means saying that 244 lbs at 15% is impossible, it most certainly is, BUT, for someone to start 80 lbs of muscle mass less, in a healthy state,… well, I haven’t seen it, and apparently people with a scientific interest in the sport, who have studied it’s history as their profession haven’t either. (Far be it from me to argue with a dentist on an internet forum though.)

And of course Brick was discussing natural bodybuilders. We’d be idiots if we pretended that chemical means to augment the body’s natural ability to recover and synthesize new tissue didn’t change the game.

S[/quote]

Uh…good job at avoiding the main point…that ignoring the entire population that is NOT “natural bodybuilding” leaves incomplete data.

That is all there is to it. You can’t even argue that. I didn’t mention what I did to start an argument or for any “hornet’s nest”. I also know I certainly don’t have the best genetics…and Kingbeef doesn’t have the best genetics…therefore, someone is able to do way more than both of us.

To even set the limit at “80lbs” and then tell newbs it is a limit is illogical and biased.

Sure, few people can do it…and probably far less who could would be on a website like this discussing it…but to state that because “natural bodybuilders” couldn’t do it that all people are limited is just bad science.[/quote]

Maybe if we include people from the hood in the study…

Seriously, what better sample of people can you find than natural bodybuilders? These are pepole that dedicate their time to exactly what is being discussed-building muscle. If you’re looking for the fastest people in the world, you would look for pro sprinters etc.

383

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

Maybe if we include people from the hood in the study…

Seriously, what better sample of people can you find than natural bodybuilders? These are pepole that dedicate their time to exactly what is being discussed-building muscle. If you’re looking for the fastest people in the world, you would look for pro sprinters etc.

[/quote]

This was the statement made:
[i]BrickHead wrote:

Not one natural has built 80 pounds of muscle. [/i]

This is either false r an unknown. He didn’t even say, “this is what we know natural bodybuilders to have reached as a limit in competition”. He literally said no natural has done this…as if he literally knows what all naturals can do, have done and are limited by.

yes, I will speak up if I see faulty info like this given out…whether that starts a “hornet’s nest” or not.

The rest of you can keep banding together to sing chants or whatever it is cults do lately.

Bottom line, I would not expect the most gifted among us in society to choose “natural bodybuilding” as their field of choice.

That means if you want to set your own limits by that, fine…just don’t tell everyone else that this is what all “naturals” can do or ever do.

384

.

385

Premise:
Unicorns don’t exist.

Retort:
Just because nobody has seen one doesn’t mean there isn’t one out there somewhere that is farting out rainbows and spreading good will throughout the galaxy.

386

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Premise:
Unicorns don’t exist.

Retort:
Just because nobody has seen one doesn’t mean there isn’t one out there somewhere that is farting out rainbows and spreading good will throughout the galaxy.
[/quote]

You can’t possibly say that. No way you could ever get this kind of data.

There could be unicorns out in the middle of the rainforest eating McRainys sandwiches all day and playing Rainbowball but never get the opportunities to make it in the big time.

But everyone knows that the real fame isn’t in being a unicorn. So why would the unicorns with the most potential and the best genetics stay a unicorn? They would do whatever it takes to get rid of that horn and get into the Kentucky Derby as a real horse.

That’s what some of you here don’t seem to understand. Your putting limits on what every unicorn can do and that doesn’t help anyone.

Unicorn newbs are going to read this and never lose their horn to chase their dreams because of these limits.

387

Interesting…so the plan is for the same shit to continue any time someone challenges one of the “crew”.

Just a note…people are getting sick of it.

Nothing in my post disrespected anyone. If you can’t defend your position without this nonsense, then you don’t have much of one to defend.

388
  1. I will say that gaining 80lbs of MUSCLE is HUMONGOUS!!! Consider that a person who is 200lbs at 12% body fat has 24lbs of fat… that leaves a lean body mass of 176lbs… some people say “I have 176lbs of muscle”… that is not true… lean body mass is composed of muscle, organs, bones and water. In an average person, bone weight is 15% of bodyweight … so that is 30lbs from the lean body mass that is not muscle. Organ (including skin) varies a bit from person to person, but an average of 35lbs is about the norm… so another 35lbs to take away from the lean body mass. Water comprise about 60% of the total body weight… but since all the tissues above contain a lot of water, it probably factors for about 20lbs of the lean body mass. So really, a guy who is 200 with 12% body fat doesn’t have 176lbs of muscle, but rather 90lbs.

So gaining 80lbs of MUSCLE would mean doubling one’s muscle mass. I do not believe that it is impossible, but it is highly unlikely, in natural trainees at least.

  1. A person’s frame has to be taken into account. Someone who is 6’6" can add more muscle to his frame than someone who is 5’4". So a blanket number like 80lbs (or any other number) is worthless unless you specify in which population.

  2. Gaining X amount of pounds of scale weight doesn’t mean that you gained that Xlbs as muscle… even if you didn’t gain any fat. Each pound of muscle tissue generally leans to an increase of 0.5lbs in body water and maybe 0.25lbs in added glycogen stores (unless one is on a low carbs diet. So someone who adds, let’s say 30lbs without gaining any fat, likely added 15-17lbs of muscle.

  3. I’ve seen too many things that would seem impossible to ever say that something is impossible. But in this case, gaining 80lbs of pure muscle tissue, is highly unlikely, but not impossible.

389


To anybody of average height attempting to surpass George Hackenschmidts 220 lb. lean physigue naturally,GOOD LUCK! :))

390

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
To anybody of average height attempting to surpass George Hackenschmidts 220 lb. lean physigue naturally,GOOD LUCK! :))

[/quote]

The scary thing is that these old pasty white pics really do not do these guys justice… a ton of definition is lost due to the very pale color… these guys must have looked 25% more impressive in person.

391

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

  1. I will say that gaining 80lbs of MUSCLE is HUMONGOUS!!! Consider that a person who is 200lbs at 12% body fat has 24lbs of fat… that leaves a lean body mass of 176lbs… some people say “I have 176lbs of muscle”… that is not true… lean body mass is composed of muscle, organs, bones and water. In an average person, bone weight is 15% of bodyweight … so that is 30lbs from the lean body mass that is not muscle. Organ (including skin) varies a bit from person to person, but an average of 35lbs is about the norm… so another 35lbs to take away from the lean body mass. Water comprise about 60% of the total body weight… but since all the tissues above contain a lot of water, it probably factors for about 20lbs of the lean body mass. So really, a guy who is 200 with 12% body fat doesn’t have 176lbs of muscle, but rather 90lbs.

So gaining 80lbs of MUSCLE would mean doubling one’s muscle mass. I do not believe that it is impossible, but it is highly unlikely, in natural trainees at least.

  1. A person’s frame has to be taken into account. Someone who is 6’6" can add more muscle to his frame than someone who is 5’4". So a blanket number like 80lbs (or any other number) is worthless unless you specify in which population.

  2. Gaining X amount of pounds of scale weight doesn’t mean that you gained that Xlbs as muscle… even if you didn’t gain any fat. Each pound of muscle tissue generally leans to an increase of 0.5lbs in body water and maybe 0.25lbs in added glycogen stores (unless one is on a low carbs diet. So someone who adds, let’s say 30lbs without gaining any fat, likely added 15-17lbs of muscle.

  3. I’ve seen too many things that would seem impossible to ever say that something is impossible. But in this case, gaining 80lbs of pure muscle tissue, is highly unlikely, but not impossible.[/quote]

Lets look at sumo wrestlers.
275 lb. at 26 % body fat,which makes about 205 lb. of lean body mass.
If we assume they are natural and that they started at about 135 lb. of LBM,that makes a 70 pound gain.

392

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
To anybody of average height attempting to surpass George Hackenschmidts 220 lb. lean physigue naturally,GOOD LUCK! :))

[/quote]

The scary thing is that these old pasty white pics really do not do these guys justice… a ton of definition is lost due to the very pale color… these guys must have looked 25% more impressive in person.[/quote]

What about living to 90 in times when average lifespan was only 45 years or bench pressing 335 lb. while maintaining wrestlers bridge?!

393

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

But let’s look for a moment at someone starting out, at an average bf%. I know that when I started lifting, I weighed about 150 lbs, and was pretty soft. Sure I ran track, played hockey, BS/Non strength sports, but an average looking guy.

So 150 lbs, at an optimistic bodyfat level of 15% yields about 127.5 lbs of Non-Fat mass (you can break it down into skeletal weight if you want, I don’t particularly care to).

S[/quote]

The baseline will really be the key determinant here.

For example, I was between 200-250lbs in high school–not full on sloppy, but…well, I played o-line, haha. Fat distributed evenly, so no gut. Fairly strong (could bench more than 300, etc.

I started running distance in college, by grad school I was very thin–indeed, probably anorexic at my lowest bodyweight point.

My frame is such that if I did not lift and ate normally, I would probably be like 175 to 185. But I started lifting again at a dangerously gaunt 135lbs. 80 pounds of muscle gain would put me at 215, with the additional fat pounds to correspond to the bodyfat % of me at 135 (I was very lean at this point).

While I’m certainly not there yet, I do think that’s a realistic long-term goal to set. However, if my baseline were assessed as the amount of muscle mass I have when eating properly and even not training in any way, it’s probably an unrealistic goal.

A good analogue would be sloah: what would be his baseline? His initial weight? His “anorexic” weight? Makes a huge difference–probably a dispositive one.

394

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:
Premise:
Unicorns don’t exist.

Retort:
Just because nobody has seen one doesn’t mean there isn’t one out there somewhere that is farting out rainbows and spreading good will throughout the galaxy.
[/quote]

You can’t possibly say that. No way you could ever get this kind of data.

There could be unicorns out in the middle of the rainforest eating McRainys sandwiches all day and playing Rainbowball but never get the opportunities to make it in the big time.

But everyone knows that the real fame isn’t in being a unicorn. So why would the unicorns with the most potential and the best genetics stay a unicorn? They would do whatever it takes to get rid of that horn and get into the Kentucky Derby as a real horse.

That’s what some of you here don’t seem to understand. Your putting limits on what every unicorn can do and that doesn’t help anyone.

Unicorn newbs are going to read this and never lose their horn to chase their dreams because of these limits.[/quote]

Rule # 9 bro…just substitute Thibs for Waylander…FTLOG.

395

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Lets look at sumo wrestlers.
275 lb. at 26 % body fat,which makes about 205 lb. of lean body mass.
If we assume they are natural and that they started at about 135 lb. of LBM,that makes a 70 pound gain.

[/quote]

No sumo wrestler starts at 135lbs, unless they start when they are 10 (which they might do). People who go into sumo are normally predisposed to being big, so it is unlikely that they start at an adult/fully developed weight of 135lbs.

Sure they might start out at 135 as kids… but then we can’t really count some of the muscle gain since it’s muscle gain that would occur no matter water during puberty/growth. And I doubt that they were 26% bodyfat when they were 135.

I started training at 135lbs, but I was 12 years old (i remember because that was my weight the first year I played football). I’m 228lbs now (this morning) and I am leaner than I was back then. Technically I could claim a 93lbs gain of muscle. But if I look at my family members, my normal adult bodyweight (no training) would have been between 180 and 185. So more realistically I probably gained 45lbs.

396

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Lets look at sumo wrestlers.
275 lb. at 26 % body fat,which makes about 205 lb. of lean body mass.
If we assume they are natural and that they started at about 135 lb. of LBM,that makes a 70 pound gain.

[/quote]

No sumo wrestler starts at 135lbs, unless they start when they are 10 (which they might do). People who go into sumo are normally predisposed to being big, so it is unlikely that they start at an adult/fully developed weight of 135lbs.

Sure they might start out at 135 as kids… but then we can’t really count some of the muscle gain since it’s muscle gain that would occur no matter water during puberty/growth. And I doubt that they were 26% bodyfat when they were 135.

I started training at 135lbs, but I was 12 years old (i remember because that was my weight the first year I played football). I’m 228lbs now (this morning) and I am leaner than I was back then. Technically I could claim a 93lbs gain of muscle. But if I look at my family members, my normal adult bodyweight (no training) would have been between 180 and 185. So more realistically I probably gained 45lbs.

[/quote]

I was weighing 90lbs when I first got to high school at the age of 13.

I have been as heavy as 305lbs.

397

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I was weighing 90lbs when I first got to high school at the age of 13.

I have been as heavy as 305lbs.
[/quote]

So you were 30lbs heavier than the sumos in the study :wink:

398

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I was weighing 90lbs when I first got to high school at the age of 13.

I have been as heavy as 305lbs.
[/quote]

So you were 30lbs heavier than the sumos in the study ;)[/quote]

Yep…but with a much better looking ass.

399

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Yep…but with a much better looking ass.[/quote]

Yeah, but sumos are revered as demi-Gods

400

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Yep…but with a much better looking ass.[/quote]

Yeah, but sumos are revered as demi-Gods[/quote]

Maybe my ass looks better than a gods’.