[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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 god’s.[/quote]
I guess it depends which one! I’d probably take you over Poseidon, but Thor is out of your league man… ok… now it’s just too weird
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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]
Thanks for getting in on the discussion I went back and read your article “The Truth About Bulking” a couple of weeks ago.
Have any of your ideas regarding bulking changed since then?
From the “Ideal Physique” thread.
[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
why won’t anyone tell me who he is?
pulllllllease?[/quote]
x2. anyone?[/quote]
Kids today and their ‘not knowing how to Reverse Image Search on Google.’ Sillyheads.
Turns out it’s Sid Lindsey. Just won his pro card at Musclemania last year. 5’10", 195 on stage. I read where he said he’s 240 in the offseason, for whatever it’s worth.[/quote]
I wonder what his starting stats were.
[quote]cueball wrote:
I wonder what his starting stats were.
[/quote]
I doubt he was 115.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
^I think this is a viable point to be made, no matter how some people may see it as avoiding the main argument (which I guess I must have missed). Sure if we were to sample the entire world’s population, there might be the standout who defies all previously known examples of development. But, if you’re using a population that specifically dedicates their lives to the pursuit of the most possible level of muscular achievement (without the aid of chemical enhancement, as we’re interested in just how capable human development can be without technological aid), and we’ve got a good 50-60 years of examples to draw from, while it may not be 100% conclusive in the truest sense of the word, arguing against such a sampling just seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
^I think this is a viable point to be made, no matter how some people may see it as avoiding the main argument (which I guess I must have missed). Sure if we were to sample the entire world’s population, there might be the standout who defies all previously known examples of development. But, if you’re using a population that specifically dedicates their lives to the pursuit of the most possible level of muscular achievement (without the aid of chemical enhancement, as we’re interested in just how capable human development can be without technological aid), and we’ve got a good 50-60 years of examples to draw from, while it may not be 100% conclusive in the truest sense of the word, arguing against such a sampling just seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
S[/quote]
Get out of here with your logic and well thought out statements Stu…
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[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 god’s.[/quote]
I guess it depends which one! I’d probably take you over Poseidon, but Thor is out of your league man… ok… now it’s just too weird [/quote]
Thor? ;))
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
^I think this is a viable point to be made, no matter how some people may see it as avoiding the main argument (which I guess I must have missed). Sure if we were to sample the entire world’s population, there might be the standout who defies all previously known examples of development. But, if you’re using a population that specifically dedicates their lives to the pursuit of the most possible level of muscular achievement (without the aid of chemical enhancement, as we’re interested in just how capable human development can be without technological aid), and we’ve got a good 50-60 years of examples to draw from, while it may not be 100% conclusive in the truest sense of the word, arguing against such a sampling just seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
S[/quote]
Get out of here with your logic and well thought out statements Stu…
[/quote]
Yeah! Just eat & GTH (get fakin hooge!!!)! ;))
All those pencilneck newbs worrying bout their body-fat percentage make me sick! :))
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
I wonder what his starting stats were.
[/quote]
I doubt he was 115.[/quote]
Even if it was 115, he certainly wasn’t 0% bodyfat, and even if he was, not all lean mass is muscle. People vastly underestimate what 80lbs of dry muscle gain is(for example: the guy who replied to Brick right after he made the statement). I didn’t go into the detail Thibs did because I kind of just wanted to be an asshole and point out that the poster was dumb and wrong, but I’m glad CT did break it down to show how even 100% ‘lean mass’ gains are not all ‘muscle gains.’ It’s a semantics issue, but I’m assuming Brick wasn’t being misleading saying ‘80lbs of muscle’ and actually meant what he typed, not 80lbs of lean mass, which most serious trainees should achieve without being carb and water depleted.
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
I wonder what his starting stats were.
[/quote]
I doubt he was 115.[/quote]
Even if it was 115, he certainly wasn’t 0% bodyfat, and even if he was, not all lean mass is muscle. People vastly underestimate what 80lbs of dry muscle gain is(for example: the guy who replied to Brick right after he made the statement). I didn’t go into the detail Thibs did because I kind of just wanted to be an asshole and point out that the poster was dumb and wrong, but I’m glad CT did break it down to show how even 100% ‘lean mass’ gains are not all ‘muscle gains.’ It’s a semantics issue, but I’m assuming Brick wasn’t being misleading saying ‘80lbs of muscle’ and actually meant what he typed, not 80lbs of lean mass, which most serious trainees should achieve without being carb and water depleted.[/quote]
Dumb and wrong? You serious?
I do think most of us know the difference between all muscle and “bone, organs, water and everything else”. That wasn’t the point. If some guy starts at 90lbs and reaches well over 200lbs lean, chances are, running around telling everyone they can’t gain “80lbs” would be misleading…BECAUSE WITHOUT AUTOPSY no one would know EXACTLY how much was lean muscle tissue.
I could see if someone here was writing something completely off the wall…but I’m not…so the desire to rush to label everything I write as “dumb and wrong” has gotten a little silly.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]red04 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
I wonder what his starting stats were.
[/quote]
I doubt he was 115.[/quote]
Even if it was 115, he certainly wasn’t 0% bodyfat, and even if he was, not all lean mass is muscle. People vastly underestimate what 80lbs of dry muscle gain is(for example: the guy who replied to Brick right after he made the statement). I didn’t go into the detail Thibs did because I kind of just wanted to be an asshole and point out that the poster was dumb and wrong, but I’m glad CT did break it down to show how even 100% ‘lean mass’ gains are not all ‘muscle gains.’ It’s a semantics issue, but I’m assuming Brick wasn’t being misleading saying ‘80lbs of muscle’ and actually meant what he typed, not 80lbs of lean mass, which most serious trainees should achieve without being carb and water depleted.[/quote]
Dumb and wrong? You serious?
I do think most of us know the difference between all muscle and “bone, organs, water and everything else”. That wasn’t the point. If some guy starts at 90lbs and reaches well over 200lbs lean, chances are, running around telling everyone they can’t gain “80lbs” would be misleading…BECAUSE WITHOUT AUTOPSY no one would know EXACTLY how much was lean muscle tissue.
I could see if someone here was writing something completely off the wall…but I’m not…so the desire to rush to label everything I write as “dumb and wrong” has gotten a little silly.[/quote]
Red wasn’t talking about you. He was talking about the guy who gave his stats in order to prove he had already gained over 80lbs of muscle and said “you do the math” when actually “doing the math” showed that he in fact had not gained 80lbs.
That’s what was dumb and wrong… Not your post.
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
^I think this is a viable point to be made, no matter how some people may see it as avoiding the main argument (which I guess I must have missed). Sure if we were to sample the entire world’s population, there might be the standout who defies all previously known examples of development. But, if you’re using a population that specifically dedicates their lives to the pursuit of the most possible level of muscular achievement (without the aid of chemical enhancement, as we’re interested in just how capable human development can be without technological aid), and we’ve got a good 50-60 years of examples to draw from, while it may not be 100% conclusive in the truest sense of the word, arguing against such a sampling just seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
S[/quote]
This.
@X: There is no point in repeating the blindingly obvious ad nauseam. Everyone understood your point the first time you posted it (years ago?). While your point is clearly not wrong, it is indeed a trivial point. Also, it doesn’t undermine Brick&cos basic proposition whatsoever. Move on.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
it is indeed a trivial point. .[/quote]
It can’t possibly be “trivial” if people are doing it.
Simply put, if a bodybuilder starts out as a skinny twig of 90lbs and gets big, he probably gained more than the “80lbs limit”…so telling this newb when he was 90lbs that he is limited by an “80lbs limit” would serve what purpose?
Since we won’t know how much is “all muscle” until he dies and they perform an autopsy, what good is this doing?
A skinny 90 pound twig is either a child or a malnourished, severely underweight grown male, both of which haven’t been used as starting points by us.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
it is indeed a trivial point. .[/quote]
It can’t possibly be “trivial” if people are doing it.
Simply put, if a bodybuilder starts out as a skinny twig of 90lbs and gets big, he probably gained more than the “80lbs limit”…so telling this newb when he was 90lbs that he is limited by an “80lbs limit” would serve what purpose?
Since we won’t know how much is “all muscle” until he dies and they perform an autopsy, what good is this doing?[/quote]
90 lb.?! Are we talking about Pigmey women? I was 140 lb. when I was 14 and I was skinnier and lighter than most in my class.
These hypotheticals are all stupid. There are not many 90 pound full grown males out there and for the ones that are, they are not getting huge. And they are especially not gaining 80 pounds of muscle considering they’d have to be 4’2" and have a tiny frame to even weigh that little to begin with.
Sumo wrestlers LBM doesn’t mean shit when we’re talking about bodybuilding.
Separating dry muscle tissue weight with glycogen and water weight is also a waste of time. If I gain 20 pounds and it consists of muscle tissue, water weight (in the muscle) and glycogen stores (in the muscle) and not an ounce of fat, I’ve gained 20 pounds of muscle.
Let’s keep it simple. Gaining 80 pounds is not the same as gaining 80 pounds of LBM. In the history of natural bodybuilding we don’t have any examples of someone gaining a true 80 pounds of LBM. That’s not saying it’s genetically impossible, but let’s be honest, it’s pretty close to genetically impossible. So close to genetically impossible that it’s not even worth discussing. If someone has the genetics to do it, trust me, they are not allowing what they read on this website to hinder their progress.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
These hypotheticals are all stupid. There are not many 90 pound full grown males out there and for the ones that are, they are not getting huge. And they are especially not gaining 80 pounds of muscle considering they’d have to be 4’2" and have a tiny frame to even weigh that little to begin with.
Sumo wrestlers LBM doesn’t mean shit when we’re talking about bodybuilding.
Separating dry muscle tissue weight with glycogen and water weight is also a waste of time. If I gain 20 pounds and it consists of muscle tissue, water weight (in the muscle) and glycogen stores (in the muscle) and not an ounce of fat, I’ve gained 20 pounds of muscle.
Let’s keep it simple. Gaining 80 pounds is not the same as gaining 80 pounds of LBM. In the history of natural bodybuilding we don’t have any examples of someone gaining a true 80 pounds of LBM. That’s not saying it’s genetically impossible, but let’s be honest, it’s pretty close to genetically impossible. So close to genetically impossible that it’s not even worth discussing. If someone has the genetics to do it, trust me, they are not allowing what they read on this website to hinder their progress. [/quote]
Great post.
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
A skinny 90 pound twig is either a child or a malnourished, severely underweight grown male, both of which haven’t been used as starting points by us. [/quote]
?? CT used an example of someone at the age of 14 who was 135. I just wrote that at around the same age, I was 90lbs. I wasn’t “malnourished”.
X, you said that you’re close to an 80 pound muscle gain. I estimate you have gained 30 to 40 pounds of muscle rather than close to 80 pounds because judging from your physique now, you’d probably have to get down to 190 to 200 pounds to be 12% bodyfat.
My recognition of this should be interpreted as a compliment considering gaining that amount of muscle isn’t a simple task, considering that naturals can gain about 40 to 50 pounds of muscle. If I recall correctly, you used a Biotest prohormone; nevertheless it’s still very good progress. If you choose to take it as an insult, rather than a compliment, I apologize–seriously.
Your gain can be even greater if you get your lower body up. How this sort of talk is “limiting” or negative in anyway is beyond me.
Clinically speaking, normal bodyweight for males of 5’10" is 166# +/- 10% depending on frame size. If we take an example of a 166# and add 80# pounds of muscle, we are looking at an astounding 246# natural bodybuilder with average bodyfat levels (12 to 17%) at 5’10"!
No one has seen this!
You’ve said we should go by specific examples and not exclude the entire world’s population rather than just going by natural bodybuilders. You’ve said there are people who are “doing it” meaning gaining 80# of muscle. Who are they?
