Think You Are Big But Just Fat

Training
541

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
Those old time strong men were performers, most of the time working for the circus.

The bearded lady was legit?

The 1,000 lb man was really 1,000lbs?

Those 500lb circus dumbbells were really 500lbs?

It was all a show. Stats were used to bring in customers who had never seen such incredible things. Yeah these guys were built, especially for back then, but to think that these guys 100 years ago are FAR AND AWAY surpassing what virtually any natural bodybuilder has done over the past 40 years or so is incredibly naive.[/quote]

I used old time wrestlers because they built their bodies in the pre-steroid era.[/quote]

uhhh 1956 was not pre-steroid. [/quote]

Learn something about steroid history before you throw some random year that has nothing to do with this discussion.

542

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Is it possible to run 100 metres sub-10 sec? Hell yeah! For extremely geneticaly gifted individuals trained properly,that is.
[/quote]

Of course itā€™s possible, it has been done and verified quite a bit.

Do you think the top competitive natural BBers in the world are extremely geniticaly gifted individuals who train properly?[/quote]

I think this is a major point in this discussion, especially when the argument that such a feat is possible usually revolves around the negative effect of ā€˜setting limitsā€™ on a trainee. In running, there were many feats that were previously thought to be undo-able, and yet people managed to accomplish them, despite the attitude of ā€œitā€™s impossibleā€ being so prevalent. So to me, thatā€™s just a silly argument.

Sure people can argue on an internet site about how so and so looks to have accomplished this feat, but until an actual name is given of someone who started as a fully mature adult (having reached their ā€˜naturalā€™ normal level of physical development), and taking into account steady bodyfat levels, puts on 80 lbs of scale weight with the same level of adipose (thus a constant), it will always be something that is argued. Besides, if itā€™s such a possible task, why arenā€™t there a bunch of names easily found who have done so?
From what I know of the top natural physique athletes, the #s they throw out concerning weights lifted, measurements, and muscle gained, is far far less than your average bodybuilding forum visitor claims of themselves.

Also, similar to the runners example; if looking at the top athletes in a field, over a large time frame (ie. non PED using bodybuilders since the 1950ā€™s), doesnā€™t yield a picture that barring some true freak of nature all the way off the accepted spectrum of normal development, then youā€™re just too caught up in the notion of ā€œif you think you can, or you think you canā€™t, youā€™re right.ā€ In real life though, no matter how much I truly believe that I can build 30" muscular arms, itā€™s just not in the cards.

S[/quote]

As discussion progresses,there are other variables thrown in.
We started with *80 pounds of lean body mass built naturally *=possible or not? -and then it was after adult age,then at the same body fat percentage,then at average height,ā€¦

As for the last part of your post,I think we shouldnt drag this interesting discussion down to the kindergarten level.
The lenght of muscles is always ahead of the the width of the muscles,anyway,so 30 inch is more like a very big thigh than upper arm.

Also,the geneticaly gifted individual capable of adding 80 lb. of lean body mass would also be very tall,with heavy and big skeleton structure,i.e. big scull,long clavicles,thigh knees,elbows,wrists and ankles and long muscles with relatively short tendons.

543

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
Those old time strong men were performers, most of the time working for the circus.

The bearded lady was legit?

The 1,000 lb man was really 1,000lbs?

Those 500lb circus dumbbells were really 500lbs?

It was all a show. Stats were used to bring in customers who had never seen such incredible things. Yeah these guys were built, especially for back then, but to think that these guys 100 years ago are FAR AND AWAY surpassing what virtually any natural bodybuilder has done over the past 40 years or so is incredibly naive.[/quote]

You are assuming what I think.Are you a mind reader?
[/quote]

Do you know what assuming means?

I didnā€™t put any words in your mouth. I asked you questions? I asked if you thought those other circus tricks (like the strongman you listed) were actually legit? That is not assuming, itā€™s called asking a question.[/quote]

1.I used these old time strongman as an example primarily because they were undoubtely natural

2.they had a lot of lean body mass espacialy compared to the other people of their era

3.if they managed to build a lot of muscle with very limited resources- they didnt have modern gyms,fridges,supplements,out of season fruits or veggies,internet,modern transportation,medical care,modern surgery,etc.,then I argue they would build much more muscle with todays resources and focusing only on bodybuilding.

Whether I believe whats published about their feats of strenght is true or not,my belief has nothing to do at all with reality of building 80 lb. of lean mass or no.

544

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:

[quote]jeremielemauvais wrote:
Actually, Iā€™m not sure the guys with the best genetics for the sport would choose to stay all-natural all their lives, assuming they were serious about the sport.

[quote]gregron wrote:
Do you think the top competitive natural BBers in the world are extremely geniticaly gifted individuals who train properly?[/quote]
[/quote]

lol weired you sound alot like profX.

wait! so now people who choose to remain natural are not serious about the sport?

you cant look at guys like stu, cordova, layne norton and alberto nunez and tell me they dont have great genetics for bodybuilding.[/quote]

My thoughts exactly. ESPECIALLY Cordova, that guy is an absolute freak. Imagine him on gear.

545

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
Those old time strong men were performers, most of the time working for the circus.

The bearded lady was legit?

The 1,000 lb man was really 1,000lbs?

Those 500lb circus dumbbells were really 500lbs?

It was all a show. Stats were used to bring in customers who had never seen such incredible things. Yeah these guys were built, especially for back then, but to think that these guys 100 years ago are FAR AND AWAY surpassing what virtually any natural bodybuilder has done over the past 40 years or so is incredibly naive.[/quote]

You are assuming what I think.Are you a mind reader?
[/quote]

Do you know what assuming means?

I didnā€™t put any words in your mouth. I asked you questions? I asked if you thought those other circus tricks (like the strongman you listed) were actually legit? That is not assuming, itā€™s called asking a question.[/quote]

1.I used these old time strongman as an example primarily because they were undoubtely natural

2.they had a lot of lean body mass espacialy compared to the other people of their era

3.if they managed to build a lot of muscle with very limited resources- they didnt have modern gyms,fridges,supplements,out of season fruits or veggies,internet,modern transportation,medical care,modern surgery,etc.,then I argue they would build much more muscle with todays resources and focusing only on bodybuilding.

Whether I believe whats published about their feats of strenght is true or not,my belief has nothing to do at all with reality of building 80 lb. of lean mass or no.

[/quote]

You could also argue that these old time strongmen were more likely than not naturally large and strong human beings BEFORE they started training. I donā€™t think anybody here would assume they were twinks before they started.

Viewing it that way would certainly reduce the amount of LBM they would have needed to add to get to where they are in those photos. Unless of course you have some stating stats for these fellas.

546

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
As discussion progresses,there are other variables thrown in.
We started with *80 pounds of lean body mass built naturally *=possible or not? -and then it was after adult age,then at the same body fat percentage,then at average height,ā€¦[/quote]

Well, I think we have to establish a starting point. If weā€™re just saying 80 lbs, well then of course you can. Look at any young child, and then check back on them in 18-21 years. If youā€™re discussing this as to how it relates to bodybuilding, then we sort of have to assume that weā€™re going above what a typical, untrained, yet still mature adult would look like in terms of lean body mass.

[quote]
As for the last part of your post,I think we shouldnt drag this interesting discussion down to the kindergarten level. [/quote]

Honestly didnā€™t mean to have it come of as youā€™ve taken it. It was simply an attempt to point out the argument of not focusing on self imposed limits, isnā€™t always the final answer when youā€™re discussing genetically determined capabilities.

[quote]
The lenght of muscles is always ahead of the the width of the muscles,anyway,so 30 inch is more like a very big thigh than upper arm. [/quote]

Hence my ridiculous example of such a sized arm :slight_smile:

S

547

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
Those old time strong men were performers, most of the time working for the circus.

The bearded lady was legit?

The 1,000 lb man was really 1,000lbs?

Those 500lb circus dumbbells were really 500lbs?

It was all a show. Stats were used to bring in customers who had never seen such incredible things. Yeah these guys were built, especially for back then, but to think that these guys 100 years ago are FAR AND AWAY surpassing what virtually any natural bodybuilder has done over the past 40 years or so is incredibly naive.[/quote]

You are assuming what I think.Are you a mind reader?
[/quote]

Do you know what assuming means?

I didnā€™t put any words in your mouth. I asked you questions? I asked if you thought those other circus tricks (like the strongman you listed) were actually legit? That is not assuming, itā€™s called asking a question.[/quote]

1.I used these old time strongman as an example primarily because they were undoubtely natural

2.they had a lot of lean body mass espacialy compared to the other people of their era

3.if they managed to build a lot of muscle with very limited resources- they didnt have modern gyms,fridges,supplements,out of season fruits or veggies,internet,modern transportation,medical care,modern surgery,etc.,then I argue they would build much more muscle with todays resources and focusing only on bodybuilding.

Whether I believe whats published about their feats of strenght is true or not,my belief has nothing to do at all with reality of building 80 lb. of lean mass or no.

[/quote]

You could also argue that these old time strongmen were more likely than not naturally large and strong human beings BEFORE they started training. I donā€™t think anybody here would assume they were twinks before they started.

Viewing it that way would certainly reduce the amount of LBM they would have needed to add to get to where they are in those photos. Unless of course you have some stating stats for these fellas.

[/quote]

Of course! It comes with the territory.But it would be easier for somebody who is natural mesomorph with heavy build to build even more lean body mass past the age of 18 than a skinny-fat ectomorph would.

548

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
As discussion progresses,there are other variables thrown in.
We started with *80 pounds of lean body mass built naturally *=possible or not? -and then it was after adult age,then at the same body fat percentage,then at average height,ā€¦[/quote]

Well, I think we have to establish a starting point. If weā€™re just saying 80 lbs, well then of course you can. Look at any young child, and then check back on them in 18-21 years. If youā€™re discussing this as to how it relates to bodybuilding, then we sort of have to assume that weā€™re going above what a typical, untrained, yet still mature adult would look like in terms of lean body mass.

[quote]
As for the last part of your post,I think we shouldnt drag this interesting discussion down to the kindergarten level. [/quote]

Honestly didnā€™t mean to have it come of as youā€™ve taken it. It was simply an attempt to point out the argument of not focusing on self imposed limits, isnā€™t always the final answer when youā€™re discussing genetically determined capabilities.

[quote]
The lenght of muscles is always ahead of the the width of the muscles,anyway,so 30 inch is more like a very big thigh than upper arm. [/quote]

Hence my ridiculous example of such a sized arm :slight_smile:

S[/quote]

Its interesting to look at the role of genetic predisposition.
One example,Roy Jones Jr. and Mike Tyson.

Both professional boxers.Both champions in their respective weight class.Both of the same/similar height,but about 50 pounds difference in lean body mas.

549

^Good point. Heck, When I compete, Iā€™m usually a middleweight at 5ā€™8, but there are guys the same height as me in the lightweights, and even a few seriously brick-thick dudes as light-heavies.

S

550

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
Those old time strong men were performers, most of the time working for the circus.

The bearded lady was legit?

The 1,000 lb man was really 1,000lbs?

Those 500lb circus dumbbells were really 500lbs?

It was all a show. Stats were used to bring in customers who had never seen such incredible things. Yeah these guys were built, especially for back then, but to think that these guys 100 years ago are FAR AND AWAY surpassing what virtually any natural bodybuilder has done over the past 40 years or so is incredibly naive.[/quote]

You are assuming what I think.Are you a mind reader?
[/quote]

Do you know what assuming means?

I didnā€™t put any words in your mouth. I asked you questions? I asked if you thought those other circus tricks (like the strongman you listed) were actually legit? That is not assuming, itā€™s called asking a question.[/quote]

1.I used these old time strongman as an example primarily because they were undoubtely natural

2.they had a lot of lean body mass espacialy compared to the other people of their era

3.if they managed to build a lot of muscle with very limited resources- they didnt have modern gyms,fridges,supplements,out of season fruits or veggies,internet,modern transportation,medical care,modern surgery,etc.,then I argue they would build much more muscle with todays resources and focusing only on bodybuilding.

Whether I believe whats published about their feats of strenght is true or not,my belief has nothing to do at all with reality of building 80 lb. of lean mass or no.

[/quote]

You could also argue that these old time strongmen were more likely than not naturally large and strong human beings BEFORE they started training. I donā€™t think anybody here would assume they were twinks before they started.

Viewing it that way would certainly reduce the amount of LBM they would have needed to add to get to where they are in those photos. Unless of course you have some stating stats for these fellas.

[/quote]

Of course! It comes with the territory.But it would be easier for somebody who is natural mesomorph with heavy build to build even more lean body mass past the age of 18 than a skinny-fat ectomorph would.

[/quote]

Thatā€™s taking a bit of a liberty there, isnā€™t it? What you posted in no way validates these menā€™s true bodyweight or how much mass they added to reach it.

551

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Its interesting to look at the role of genetic predisposition.
One example,Roy Jones Jr. and Mike Tyson.

Both professional boxers.Both champions in their respective weight class.Both of the same/similar height,but about 50 pounds difference in lean body mas.
[/quote]

The difference is not that great. Tyson did fight as heavy as 239 but during his prime (pre-prison) his fighting weight was between 215 and 220 since he was a heavyweight, he didnā€™t have to lose weight for his fights, so itā€™s fair to say that during his prime his normal bodyweight was 215-220lbs.

Roy Jones fought in many weight classes having his best physique arguably as a cruiserweight (198lbs)ā€¦ his fighting weight in that class was 193lbs, so likely didnā€™t cut too much weight, if any at all. When he fought in lighter classes he simply dropped a ton of water weight (which most boxers used to do back then and still today to some extent). So it is fair to say that his normal weight was in the 190sā€¦ probably between 193 and 195lbs.

So we have a 20-25lbs difference, not 50. Furthermore, Roy Jones was a bit leaner, so the actual difference in lean body mass was probably more like 10-15lbs.

552

It just doesnā€™t sound like people realize how much 80 pounds of muscle is. I wish I were being limited to that much.

The possibly few people that have gotten there or close, arenā€™t going to be dissuaded from pushing there limits by the statement. And the other 99.9999% of us canā€™t be limited by it because we arenā€™t anywhere close to that ceiling.

Adding 80 pounds of muscle to an adult is a HUGE amount. Itā€™s like ā€œlimitingā€ your ability to earn by saying youā€™ll never make a trillion dollars.

553

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It just doesnā€™t sound like people realize how much 80 pounds of muscle is. I wish I were being limited to that much.

The possibly few people that have gotten there are close, arenā€™t going to be deswaded from pushing there limits by the statement. And the other 99.9999% of us canā€™t be limited by it because we arenā€™t anywhere close to that ceiling.

Adding 80 pounds of muscle to an adult is a HUGE amount. Itā€™s like ā€œlimitingā€ your ability to earn by saying youā€™ll never make a trillion dollars.[/quote]

EXACTLY! The body is not fat and muscleā€¦ itā€™s fat, organs, bones, water and muscles. Lean body mass is NOT muscle weight. Itā€™s muscle + organs + bones + water. And average male has about 40% of his bodyweight as muscle. For a 180lbs individual weā€™re talking about 72lbsā€¦ that puts in perspective how much 80lbs of muscle really is!

554

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It just doesnā€™t sound like people realize how much 80 pounds of muscle is. I wish I were being limited to that much.

The possibly few people that have gotten there are close, arenā€™t going to be deswaded from pushing there limits by the statement. And the other 99.9999% of us canā€™t be limited by it because we arenā€™t anywhere close to that ceiling.

Adding 80 pounds of muscle to an adult is a HUGE amount. Itā€™s like ā€œlimitingā€ your ability to earn by saying youā€™ll never make a trillion dollars.[/quote]

EXACTLY! The body is not fat and muscleā€¦ itā€™s fat, organs, bones, water and muscles. Lean body mass is NOT muscle weight. Itā€™s muscle + organs + bones + water. And average male has about 40% of his bodyweight as muscle. For a 180lbs individual weā€™re talking about 72lbsā€¦ that puts in perspective how much 80lbs of muscle really is![/quote]

It was my understanding that we were talking about lean body mass from the get go.

555

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Its interesting to look at the role of genetic predisposition.
One example,Roy Jones Jr. and Mike Tyson.

Both professional boxers.Both champions in their respective weight class.Both of the same/similar height,but about 50 pounds difference in lean body mas.
[/quote]

The difference is not that great. Tyson did fight as heavy as 239 but during his prime (pre-prison) his fighting weight was between 215 and 220 since he was a heavyweight, he didnā€™t have to lose weight for his fights, so itā€™s fair to say that during his prime his normal bodyweight was 215-220lbs.

Roy Jones fought in many weight classes having his best physique arguably as a cruiserweight (198lbs)ā€¦ his fighting weight in that class was 193lbs, so likely didnā€™t cut too much weight, if any at all. When he fought in lighter classes he simply dropped a ton of water weight (which most boxers used to do back then and still today to some extent). So it is fair to say that his normal weight was in the 190sā€¦ probably between 193 and 195lbs.

So we have a 20-25lbs difference, not 50. Furthermore, Roy Jones was a bit leaner, so the actual difference in lean body mass was probably more like 10-15lbs.
[/quote]

Difference in lean body mass between Tyson and Roy Jones Jr. was like 10-15 lbs.?! Thats ridicoulous! :)))

Have you seen these men box when in their prime?

556

[quote]detazathoth wrote:
It was my understanding that we were talking about lean body mass from the get go.[/quote]

Well, since it is unlikely that you will gain organ mass (unless you use huge doses of hGH and insulin) or bone mass (maybe a few grams, but nothing significant) we are pretty left with added muscle and water weight when it comes to added lean body mass.

So in a sense, lean body mass gains = muscle gains. The point I was making is that 80lbs of muscle is HUMONGOUS when you realize that most male adults doe not even have that mount of muscle to start with.

557

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It just doesnā€™t sound like people realize how much 80 pounds of muscle is. I wish I were being limited to that much.

The possibly few people that have gotten there are close, arenā€™t going to be deswaded from pushing there limits by the statement. And the other 99.9999% of us canā€™t be limited by it because we arenā€™t anywhere close to that ceiling.

Adding 80 pounds of muscle to an adult is a HUGE amount. Itā€™s like ā€œlimitingā€ your ability to earn by saying youā€™ll never make a trillion dollars.[/quote]

EXACTLY! The body is not fat and muscleā€¦ itā€™s fat, organs, bones, water and muscles. Lean body mass is NOT muscle weight. Itā€™s muscle + organs + bones + water. And average male has about 40% of his bodyweight as muscle. For a 180lbs individual weā€™re talking about 72lbsā€¦ that puts in perspective how much 80lbs of muscle really is![/quote]

We are discussing lean body mass here and the reason is because the extra muscle mass comes with more bone mass,more ligament and tendon mass,more blood and bigger internal organs to support all that.

558

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It just doesnā€™t sound like people realize how much 80 pounds of muscle is. I wish I were being limited to that much.

The possibly few people that have gotten there are close, arenā€™t going to be deswaded from pushing there limits by the statement. And the other 99.9999% of us canā€™t be limited by it because we arenā€™t anywhere close to that ceiling.

Adding 80 pounds of muscle to an adult is a HUGE amount. Itā€™s like ā€œlimitingā€ your ability to earn by saying youā€™ll never make a trillion dollars.[/quote]

EXACTLY! The body is not fat and muscleā€¦ itā€™s fat, organs, bones, water and muscles. Lean body mass is NOT muscle weight. Itā€™s muscle + organs + bones + water. And average male has about 40% of his bodyweight as muscle. For a 180lbs individual weā€™re talking about 72lbsā€¦ that puts in perspective how much 80lbs of muscle really is![/quote]

It was my understanding that we were talking about lean body mass from the get go.[/quote]

"BrickHead wrote:

Not one natural has built 80 pounds of muscle. "

People talking about LBM are building strawmen.

559

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Difference in lean body mass between Tyson and Roy Jones Jr. was like 10-15 lbs.?! Thats ridicoulous! :)))

Have you seen these men box when in their prime?
[/quote]

Of course, Iā€™m a huge boxing fan. Seriously though 15lbs of muscle tissue makes a huge visual difference especially since these guys minimize leg size gains.

Also consider that Tyson has a wider clavicle and stockier build, which makes him look larger.

560

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]SKELAC wrote:
Difference in lean body mass between Tyson and Roy Jones Jr. was like 10-15 lbs.?! Thats ridicoulous! :)))

Have you seen these men box when in their prime?
[/quote]

Of course, Iā€™m a huge boxing fan. Seriously though 15lbs of muscle tissue makes a huge visual difference especially since these guys minimize leg size gains.

Also consider that Tyson has a wider clavicle and stockier build, which makes him look larger. [/quote]

Just imagine buying 15-20 1lb steaks from the grocery store.

No imagine that each one of those steaks is muscle (which it is) that you could just shape and mold to your body like an artist would do with a clay sculpture.

You would look INSANELY different with just that ā€œsmallā€ amount of added muscle. (I put small in quotes like that because some people think 15lbs isnā€™t much but 15lbs of muscle is HUGE)