[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]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
- 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.
-
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 posting in the forums!
Do you feel that discussing this 80lb “limit” is something that would keep a new natural trainee from reaching their potential, a good guideline to be aware of so they can set realistic goals, or pointless altogether?
I think we should all acknowledge that X is bestest natural BBer ever with mad genetics and collectively move the fuck on. Deal?
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
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. [/quote]
I have no intention of arguing this with you ad nauseum, but I am 250-255. I would not have to drop 50lbs to hit 12%…but whatever.
The bottom line is, if someone is weighing 90lbs and they hit even 200lbs lean, telling them when they were 90lbs that it was impossible would have held them back. Period.
It doesn’t matter if most people can’t do that.
Stating something doesn’t limit determined individuals. Before space flight, it would have been perfectly morally neutrally for someone to say, “no one ever traveled space” or before the 4 minute mile to have said, “No one ran a sub-4:00 min mile”. Then some people came along and did just those.
Some of us here have said “No one gained 80# LBM naturally.” And we say it’s probably not going to be done, that it’s near impossible. But if someone comes along and does it, hats off!
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Stating something doesn’t limit determined individuals.[/quote]
Dude, the bottom line is, it is an incorrect statement. Even Casey Butt said his own theories may not apply to some African Americans…and he is the one I assume you are getting these “numbers” from.
If people can do it, telling them they can’t does what?
Are you saying if someone starts at 90lbs and gets to even 200lbs that you will only count “80lbs” of that as muscle or less?..and you are doing this without autopsy?
I won’t address any of the other points and I’ll let brick and prof talk this one out but where did this 90lb person come from?
The discussion has always been a full grown and developed male who is not underweight.
A high school freshmen weight definitely does not fit that description.
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
That’s great. I wasn’t a pigmy. I wasn’t “malnourished”. I was a skinny lean kid who weighed 90lbs as a high school freshmen. I have posted the picture to confirm that.
Once again, why would you tell “me at 90lbs” that I couldn’t do it?
[quote]gregron wrote:
I won’t address any of the other points and I’ll let brick and prof talk this one out but where did this 90lb person come from?
The discussion has always been a full grown and developed male who is not underweight.
A high school freshmen weight definitely does not fit that description.[/quote]
No, CT mentioned someone who was a high school freshman at 135lbs.
Since HE set the starting point at that age, I mentioned how much I weighed at the same age.
Unless you have a problem with CT setting that limit, then that is why we are now discussing it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
I won’t address any of the other points and I’ll let brick and prof talk this one out but where did this 90lb person come from?
The discussion has always been a full grown and developed male who is not underweight.
A high school freshmen weight definitely does not fit that description.[/quote]
No, CT mentioned someone who was a high school freshman at 135lbs.
Since HE set the starting point at that age, I mentioned how much I weighed at the same age.
Unless you have a problem with CT setting that limit, then that is why we are now discussing it.[/quote]
Yes, contrary to what he mentioned the original discussion is fully grown adult male who isn’t under weight.
CT can mention high school freshmen all he wants but the original discussion has always been what I described above and not the weight of a kid. Who potentially has 10 more years of growing before he is fully developed.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
I won’t address any of the other points and I’ll let brick and prof talk this one out but where did this 90lb person come from?
The discussion has always been a full grown and developed male who is not underweight.
A high school freshmen weight definitely does not fit that description.[/quote]
No, CT mentioned someone who was a high school freshman at 135lbs.
Since HE set the starting point at that age, I mentioned how much I weighed at the same age.
Unless you have a problem with CT setting that limit, then that is why we are now discussing it.[/quote]
Yes, contrary to what he mentioned the original discussion is fully grown adult male who isn’t under weight.
CT can mention high school freshmen all he wants but the original discussion has always been what I described above and not the weight of a kid. Who potentially has 10 more years of growing before he is fully developed.[/quote]
But, I was continuing his discussion…and again, if someone can do it, why tell them they can’t?
I worked UP to 150lbs as a college freshman at about 11% body fat tested at a Bally’s. I would say I still hit the limit…so why tell people they can’t?
Ct set the discussion perimeters. Don’t get mad when someone continues it.
So are we figuring an 80 lb solid LBM gain from freshman year in high school, when the adolescent body hasn’t actually reached full maturity yet? That seems kinda silly, and it would most certainly skew weight gains just as much as those old before/after weight loss ads where a woman went from post pregnancy weight back to her normal body.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
So are we figuring an 80 lb solid LBM gain from freshman year in high school, when the adolescent body hasn’t actually reached full maturity yet? That seems kinda silly, and it would most certainly skew weight gains just as much as those old before/after weight loss ads where a woman went from post pregnancy weight back to her normal body.
S[/quote]
I am wondering why no one saw it as silly when CT first wrote it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]SKELAC wrote:
[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.
[/quote]
That’s great. I wasn’t a pigmy. I wasn’t “malnourished”. I was a skinny lean kid who weighed 90lbs as a high school freshmen. I have posted the picture to confirm that.
Once again, why would you tell “me at 90lbs” that I couldn’t do it?[/quote]
If some kid spoke to me on the subject I’d discuss:
- role of genetics
- what the best naturals have achieved
- weight of average untrained males
- growth during puberty.
Then I’d encourage him to do his best.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
I won’t address any of the other points and I’ll let brick and prof talk this one out but where did this 90lb person come from?
The discussion has always been a full grown and developed male who is not underweight.
A high school freshmen weight definitely does not fit that description.[/quote]
No, CT mentioned someone who was a high school freshman at 135lbs.
Since HE set the starting point at that age, I mentioned how much I weighed at the same age.
Unless you have a problem with CT setting that limit, then that is why we are now discussing it.[/quote]
Ok, people grow at different rates. Most people have seen that freshman that dominated a sport because he matured faster, but his peers eventually caught up with him. If you were 90lb as a freshman, you were a late grower. Far, far from an adult.But let’s imaging that you never touched a weight from when you were a freshman to when you were 18 (close to full grown.) Do you think you would still be a 90lb senior, untrained? I highly doubt it. So using 90lb as your starting point to say you added 80lbs of muscle is a bit misleading.
edit: basically what stu said, beat me to it
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
So are we figuring an 80 lb solid LBM gain from freshman year in high school, when the adolescent body hasn’t actually reached full maturity yet? That seems kinda silly, and it would most certainly skew weight gains just as much as those old before/after weight loss ads where a woman went from post pregnancy weight back to her normal body.
S[/quote]
Exactly. Which is why we’re not using pre-pubescent or pubescent males as starting points on our measuring stick. There’s LBM gain in puberty just from adequate nutrition and nature taking its course.
Wut? A 90Lbs freshman is going to grow without or without weights to a minimum 140Lbs skinny adult. You know heavy things like Bone, Skin, and maybe some internal organ tissue as well… all of which carry with it more water.
I work with high school kids, and you wouldn’t believe how horribly some of these kids eat. You can’t for a second tell me that the majority of them aren’t malnourished. Sure they’re not starving to death by any means, but it’s not a situation, even the students who are on sports teams, where they’re getting a daily healthy amount of nutrition.
S
[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
I work with high school kids, and you wouldn’t believe how horribly some of these kids eat. You can’t for a second tell me that the majority of them aren’t malnourished. Sure they’re not starving to death by any means, but it’s not a situation, even the students who are on sports teams, where they’re getting a daily healthy amount of nutrition.
S[/quote]
We are not discussing the majority.
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
I won’t address any of the other points and I’ll let brick and prof talk this one out but where did this 90lb person come from?
The discussion has always been a full grown and developed male who is not underweight.
A high school freshmen weight definitely does not fit that description.[/quote]
No, CT mentioned someone who was a high school freshman at 135lbs.
Since HE set the starting point at that age, I mentioned how much I weighed at the same age.
Unless you have a problem with CT setting that limit, then that is why we are now discussing it.[/quote]
Ok, people grow at different rates. Most people have seen that freshman that dominated a sport because he matured faster, but his peers eventually caught up with him. If you were 90lb as a freshman, you were a late grower. Far, far from an adult.But let’s imaging that you never touched a weight from when you were a freshman to when you were 18 (close to full grown.) Do you think you would still be a 90lb senior, untrained? I highly doubt it. So using 90lb as your starting point to say you added 80lbs of muscle is a bit misleading.
edit: basically what stu said, beat me to it
[/quote]
I was 150lbs as a college freshman and I worked UP to that. That didn’t even happen by itself.