[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
So can we plaese stop the “well ct said it too” bs? [/quote]
Seriously. And even if he did say it, anyone with half a fucking brain can recognize it’s a dumb starting point.
As tired as I am of the “X lynch mob”, I’m just as tired of X complaining about it when it’s not even there.
And X - if you really want to use yourself as a shining example of what we’re discussing, you’re opening up to criticism your actual progress, BF levels (which I also think you’re underestimating), your truly “natural” status among other things.
I just wanted to make sure you realize that before you start complaining that everyone is talking shit about you, bashing you, etc. You brought your own progress in to this, you opened yourself up to it. [/quote]
That is why I used King beef as well because I already know these guys will act ridiculous…like me being 25% body fat right now.
I don’t have to call that “bashing”. It is simply ridiculous that no matter what progress I make, somehow I am perpetually “25% body fat” according to these guys.
After college as in 22-25 years old? Right after the age that most males have fully developed and stop growing? Hmmm…[/quote]
Are you setting 22 as a starting age? I am sure most bodybuilders started way before the age of 22…which makes these limits even more useless.[/quote]
Nope.
I’ve said it over and over, the original starting point is and always will be the weight of a natural fully grown adult male of average height who is not underweight.
After college as in 22-25 years old? Right after the age that most males have fully developed and stop growing? Hmmm…[/quote]
Are you setting 22 as a starting age? I am sure most bodybuilders started way before the age of 22…which makes these limits even more useless.[/quote]
Nope.
I’ve said it over and over, the original starting point is and always will be the weight of a fully grown adult male of average height who is not underweight.
Any more clarification needed? Just ask.[/quote]
Once again, the average male doesn’t quit growing in height until the age of around 21…and since most bodybuilders start way before the age of 21…what good is this limit?
The answer?
It has no use since most people start before the age of a fully grown male…so why the hell would you tell people some limit if most start way before that number would hold any significance?
Further, if most “natural bodybuilders” started before the age of 21…then that means the original data used to create that limit is patently FALSE.
I’m out for a few days…but what would be nice is if people who can actually hold a decent discussion jumped in…instead of the usual crew just trying to prove how wrong I am at all times.
Bottom line, if we now accept that most men don’t even grow fully until the age of 21…
and if we accept that most committed bodybuilders started way before the age of 21 with their weight lifting…
Then anyone telling all people what all naturals can do is basing this off of incomplete useless data that holds no significance.
After college as in 22-25 years old? Right after the age that most males have fully developed and stop growing? Hmmm…[/quote]
Are you setting 22 as a starting age? I am sure most bodybuilders started way before the age of 22…which makes these limits even more useless.[/quote]
Nope.
I’ve said it over and over, the original starting point is and always will be the weight of a fully grown adult male of average height who is not underweight.
Any more clarification needed? Just ask.[/quote]
Once again, the average male doesn’t quit growing in height until the age of around 21…and since most bodybuilders start way before the age of 21…what good is this limit?
The answer?
It has no use since most people start before the age of a fully grown male…so why the hell would you tell people some limit if most start way before that number would hold any significance?
Further, if most “natural bodybuilders” started before the age of 21…then that means the original data used to create that limit is patently FALSE.[/quote]
It’s not too difficult to come up with a rough estimate of what the average weight of someone would be once they hit the peramiters that are being discussed.
Take that rough estimate, which is what Brick was doing, add in a variable (the +/-10%) and go from there.
It’s not too difficult to come up with a rough estimate of what the average weight of someone would be once they hit the peramiters that are being discussed.
Take that rough estimate, which is what Brick was doing, add in a variable (the +/-10%) and go from there.
Pretty simple and straight forward. [/quote]
If no one used in the original sample started AFTER THE AGE OF 21, then the original data holds no significance.
If I would have to give a parameter it would be 40% growth in size compared to your untrained muscle mass. A certain poundage is just stupid. I’m sure andre the giant gained way more then 80lbs of muscle. Same goes for the 6’4" guy compared to the 5’6" on. Remember X is a really tall guy so his case study is he still can see his abs, other lines that indicate a well muscled physique and has gained a shitload of mass (maybe 80 lbs, who really cares). I’m at 6’2" 240 and can still see my top four abs, my adonis belt and have never touched AAS. I also put on fat in the same layer all over my body. Bodybuilding is all about creating the best illusion of size anyways
[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
If I would have to give a parameter it would be 40% growth in size compared to your untrained muscle mass. A certain poundage is just stupid. I’m sure andre the giant gained way more then 80lbs of muscle. Same goes for the 6’4" guy compared to the 5’6" on. Remember X is a really tall guy so his case study is he still can see his abs, other lines that indicate a well muscled physique and has gained a shitload of mass (maybe 80 lbs, who really cares). I’m at 6’2" 240 and can still see my top four abs, my adonis belt and have never touched AAS. I also put on fat in the same layer all over my body. Bodybuilding is all about creating the best illusion of size anyways[/quote]
Andre the Giant was morbidly obese, and if I remember correctly, had an endocrinological disease. I bet if we knew his bodyfat percentage, he’d be holding and have built less LBM than most would estimate.
I think X is 5’10" or 5’11". That’s not tall.
People distribute fat and display vascularity in different ways. There are strongman competitors with 25 to 30% bodyfat with vasularity in their arms and separation in their quads. That muscularity and vascularity doesn’t change the fact that they’re holding their respective bodyfat percentages.
It’s not too difficult to come up with a rough estimate of what the average weight of someone would be once they hit the peramiters that are being discussed.
Take that rough estimate, which is what Brick was doing, add in a variable (the +/-10%) and go from there.
Pretty simple and straight forward. [/quote]
If no one used in the original sample started AFTER THE AGE OF 21, then the original data holds no significance.
That is how science works.[/quote]
I thought you were out?
There are no scientific studies regarding this subject. We are all, yourself included, speculating and giving our opinions.
Some of us are giving our opinions off of known facts like heights and weights of natural BBers from the past 40-50 years and some are just repeating over and over that without sampeling the entire population of anyone who’s ever lived that there is know way we could know that!!!
Speculation and opinions man. I know you won’t give yours because, as you said last time we had this discussion, you’re a professional and a doctor and your words carry weight but some here aren’t afraid to discuss the topic like rational adults.
[quote]ElevenMag wrote:
If I would have to give a parameter it would be 40% growth in size compared to your untrained muscle mass. A certain poundage is just stupid. I’m sure andre the giant gained way more then 80lbs of muscle. Same goes for the 6’4" guy compared to the 5’6" on. Remember X is a really tall guy so his case study is he still can see his abs, other lines that indicate a well muscled physique and has gained a shitload of mass (maybe 80 lbs, who really cares). I’m at 6’2" 240 and can still see my top four abs, my adonis belt and have never touched AAS. I also put on fat in the same layer all over my body. Bodybuilding is all about creating the best illusion of size anyways[/quote]
Andre the Giant was morbidly obese, and if I remember correctly, had an endocrinological disease. I bet if we knew his bodyfat percentage, he’d be holding and have built less LBM than most would estimate.
I think X is 5’10" or 5’11". That’s not tall.
People distribute fat and display vascularity in different ways. There are strongman competitors with 25 to 30% bodyfat with vasularity in their arms and separation in their quads. That muscularity and vascularity doesn’t change the fact that they’re holding their respective bodyfat percentages. [/quote]
Bricks post is a good reply.
Eleven Mag - The height difference is obviously a factor in how much muscle one can gain but the original point (don’t be distracted by the 90lb 13 year old talk) and the “80lbs of muscle” gain was in reference to a person of average height which I would assume to mean 5’9-5’11.
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’d just like to point out that Thib wrote the exact OPPOSITE of what X is talking about with this “continuing the discussion” crap…
He literally wrote we CANT use 135lbs as a starting weight bla bla
[quote]zraw wrote:
Also, major lol @ whoever is talking about “dry mass” here…
Im pretty damn Brick is talking about 80lbs lbm and lol @ the dude who said this should be easily achievable to most everyone[/quote]
Pretty sure those were both me, kind of(as in, you misread or misinterpreted).
Maybe Brick didn’t literally mean 100% dry mass, but I do think he at least meant ‘contest weight’ type of weight gain, which makes the 80lb gain more strict on how much muscle it is vs all other lean mass(really water and glycogen).
As for the other comment, I said ‘serious trainees’ and never used the word easy. I would most definitely not consider your average gym goer, or anything but a select minority of gym goers as people who actually take their training seriously. Even most people on this board probably don’t fall into that category as they likely have a number of priorities they would list above their training beyond the big ones like maintaining a livelyhood(job, education) and family responsibilities. But ya, totally achievable ‘easily’ by ‘most everyone.’
[quote]zraw wrote:
Also, major lol @ whoever is talking about “dry mass” here…
Im pretty damn Brick is talking about 80lbs lbm and lol @ the dude who said this should be easily achievable to most everyone[/quote]
Pretty sure those were both me, kind of(as in, you misread or misinterpreted).
Maybe Brick didn’t literally mean 100% dry mass, but I do think he at least meant ‘contest weight’ type of weight gain, which makes the 80lb gain more strict on how much muscle it is vs all other lean mass(really water and glycogen).
As for the other comment, I said ‘serious trainees’ and never used the word easy. I would most definitely not consider your average gym goer, or anything but a select minority of gym goers as people who actually take their training seriously. Even most people on this board probably don’t fall into that category as they likely have a number of priorities they would list above their training beyond the big ones like maintaining a livelyhood(job, education) and family responsibilities. But ya, totally achievable ‘easily’ by ‘most everyone.’
Glad we could clear that up.[/quote]
Sry I did not go back to your post to see what you were saying and did indeed make my point like an asshole
Here is what I mean and Brick or Stu (didnt go back to check) used a fairly easy example to get their point accross
A guy starting at 12% bodyfat at 140lbs (so 123 lbm), in order to add 80 LBM and stay at 12% bodyfat would need to weight 123 + 80 (thats his total lbm) = 203 lbs + 17 lbs (thats the fat mass he had at 140lbs, or 123 lbm) + 9 lbs (thats the gained fat mass that came with the 80 lbm to stay at that 12% bodyfat)
What this means is that for someone starting at 140lbs at a low bodyfat level of 140lbs one would need to end up weighting 140 + 89 lbs = 229lbs @ 12% bodyfat… naturally
[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]
I have came across a tiny 90 pounder, a tiny 4 11 woman.
Where should she post?
What is the title of their forum?