I guess this might be relevant to the discussion at hand. Plus, don’t feel like making another thread.
I got myself hydrostatic weighed at my old grad school to volunteer and help a friend’s research whose getting his PH.D in exercise physio. Anyway, I weighed 255 and my body fat % came out to 26.8% (I already know and acknowledge that I’m fat so move on.) So that means I have a lean body mass of 186.6. If I were to diet down to contest ready at say 5% that would mean I weigh about 197. This is obviously assuming that I lost absolutely only fat. Lets say for argument’s sake that 10-15 pounds of lost weight is water that would be about 183 lbs lean contest prep. From this I realize that 1) I have a shitload of fat to lose. 2) Would be really happy If i gained about 17 pounds of muscle to be a lean 200 3) Realize that I have horrible shape for bodybuilding and wouldn’t ever compete cuz I look nowhere near having as much lean muscle mass as the UW weighing shows.
I’m not really sure what I meant to say with this post, but I guess we really don’t realize how much muscle we really have unless you realize how much fat you really have. Also, UW weighing is awesome if your into biohacking and tracking all these types of stats like I do. Also, for those who regularly due contest prep, Stu and Zraw, etc, how much of your weight during a cut is usually lost water and glycogen? If you could give a good estimate?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
Lets take your 285 “NOT fat” and your self proclaimed (allegedly) 230 stage weight and do a fun numbers crunch real quick.
[/quote]
Why would you do that when I never stated that I was planning to hit “230lbs contest condition”?
One poster says this and lies…and now you all just run with it.
Interesting.
[/quote]
I said allegedly. You’re innocent until proven guilty Prof.
[/quote]
LOL!!!
So even after I write that I didn’t say it, you all just keep on with the lie.
This is hilarious.
[/quote]
You’re missing the point. Greg is saying that even at 25%, at 285 lbs, you’d be competing at roughly 230 pounds if everyone was done correctly.
A couple take away points:
1 - Greg believes 25% to be fat, and hence your claim that you were not fat is fairly silly.
2 - That if you’re claiming you’re were NOT 25%, but were LOWER than 25%, you’d have an even higher stage weight which is even more ridiculous than if you had said you would compete at 230.
So on 1 hand you never claimed you would compete at 230 pounds, but if we’re looking at the numbers you’re suggesting, you believe you’d compete at a higher bodyweight than that? Or perhaps you’re admitting that your bodyfat levels at 285 pounds were higher than 25%
You can’t fight logic, bro.
This is why you gotta nut up when you use yourself as an example. Anyone can see under an even modest amount of scrutiny, these claims just don’t hold water.
250lbs of LBM? 18% BF?
260lbs of LBM? 15% BF?
Also, I should add I’m about 6’1" and change. So not really on the short side.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
You’re missing the point. Greg is saying that even at 25%, at 285 lbs, you’d be competing at roughly 230 pounds if everyone was done correctly.
A couple take away points:
1 - Greg believes 25% to be fat, and hence your claim that you were not fat is fairly silly.
2 - That if you’re claiming you’re were NOT 25%, but were LOWER than 25%, you’d have an even higher stage weight which is even more ridiculous than if you had said you would compete at 230.
So on 1 hand you never claimed you would compete at 230 pounds, but if we’re looking at the numbers you’re suggesting, you believe you’d compete at a higher bodyweight than that? Or perhaps you’re admitting that your bodyfat levels at 285 pounds were higher than 25%
You can’t fight logic, bro.
This is why you gotta nut up when you use yourself as an example. Anyone can see under an even modest amount of scrutiny, these claims just don’t hold water. [/quote]
What logic? You all just made up a bunch of numbers because I wouldn’t give a measurement.
lol. Trying just a tad too hard to start an argument.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
You’re missing the point. Greg is saying that even at 25%, at 285 lbs, you’d be competing at roughly 230 pounds if everyone was done correctly.
A couple take away points:
1 - Greg believes 25% to be fat, and hence your claim that you were not fat is fairly silly.
2 - That if you’re claiming you’re were NOT 25%, but were LOWER than 25%, you’d have an even higher stage weight which is even more ridiculous than if you had said you would compete at 230.
So on 1 hand you never claimed you would compete at 230 pounds, but if we’re looking at the numbers you’re suggesting, you believe you’d compete at a higher bodyweight than that? Or perhaps you’re admitting that your bodyfat levels at 285 pounds were higher than 25%
You can’t fight logic, bro.
This is why you gotta nut up when you use yourself as an example. Anyone can see under an even modest amount of scrutiny, these claims just don’t hold water. [/quote]
What logic? You all just made up a bunch of numbers because I wouldn’t give a measurement.
lol. Trying just a tad too hard to start an argument.[/quote]
If you’re not willing to give measurements on what you’ve accomplished, feel free to avoid entering a thread dick waving about all your accomplishments next time.
Those numbers are mathematical certainties.
And I’m out.
[quote]GrindOverMatter wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think what needs to accepted is that apparently NOT competing allows you to make more progress. [/quote]
so not competing in bodybuilding allows you to make more progress in bodybuilding?
does not compute
[/quote]
It should be easy. If people are claiming that you lose all of this muscle during contest prep, NOT doing the contest prep logically means you keep the muscle.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
You do realize that being 305 and carrying 210lbs of LBM would put you over 30% BF right.[/quote]
I didn’t say those were my numbers. [/quote]
So what were you?
220lbs of LBM? 28% BF
230lbs of LBM? 25% BF
240lbs of LBM? 21% BF
Or am I still too high?[/quote]
250lbs of LBM? 18% BF?
260lbs of LBM? 15% BF?
Am I STILL too high???
Am I at least getting warmer?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
If you’re not willing to give measurements on what you’ve accomplished, feel free to avoid entering a thread dick waving about all your accomplishments next time.
Those numbers are mathematical certainties.
And I’m out. [/quote]
I used my progress as it was relevant to the discussion. You arguing my top weight is pointless because some of you will complain no matter.
I know where I was at my top weight. I also know many of you do NOTHING but try to act like any gain beyond a certain amount is body fat.
Trying to argue “mathematical certainties” and then claiming that the methods used to even get the numbers is wrong ERASES THE CERTAINTIES.
[quote]DaBeard wrote:
I guess this might be relevant to the discussion at hand. Plus, don’t feel like making another thread.
I got myself hydrostatic weighed at my old grad school to volunteer and help a friend’s research whose getting his PH.D in exercise physio. Anyway, I weighed 255 and my body fat % came out to 26.8% (I already know and acknowledge that I’m fat so move on.) So that means I have a lean body mass of 186.6. If I were to diet down to contest ready at say 5% that would mean I weigh about 197. This is obviously assuming that I lost absolutely only fat. Lets say for argument’s sake that 10-15 pounds of lost weight is water that would be about 183 lbs lean contest prep. From this I realize that 1) I have a shitload of fat to lose. 2) Would be really happy If i gained about 17 pounds of muscle to be a lean 200 3) Realize that I have horrible shape for bodybuilding and wouldn’t ever compete cuz I look nowhere near having as much lean muscle mass as the UW weighing shows.
I’m not really sure what I meant to say with this post, but I guess we really don’t realize how much muscle we really have unless you realize how much fat you really have. Also, UW weighing is awesome if your into biohacking and tracking all these types of stats like I do. Also, for those who regularly due contest prep, Stu and Zraw, etc, how much of your weight during a cut is usually lost water and glycogen? If you could give a good estimate?[/quote]
Yeah, it’s really interesting. To me it makes me appreciate how much things like height, posing, and symmetry matter in a competitor’s look. I really don’t think I will enjoy competing but I eventually will because I think it’s essential if you want to go to the “next” level.
don’t competitors also carb up before the show? I know some don’t drink water as well, while some drink tons. Idk, I just look at lean body mass and take it as a sum of everything.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
You do realize that being 305 and carrying 210lbs of LBM would put you over 30% BF right.[/quote]
I didn’t say those were my numbers. [/quote]
So what were you?
220lbs of LBM? 28% BF
230lbs of LBM? 25% BF
240lbs of LBM? 21% BF
Or am I still too high?[/quote]
250lbs of LBM? 18% BF?
260lbs of LBM? 15% BF?
Am I STILL too high???
Am I at least getting warmer?[/quote]
265lbs of LBM? 13% BF?
270lbs of LBM? 11ish% BF?
280lbs of LBM? 8% BF?
Come on man.
I HAD to have gotten it by now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]GrindOverMatter wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think what needs to accepted is that apparently NOT competing allows you to make more progress. [/quote]
so not competing in bodybuilding allows you to make more progress in bodybuilding?
does not compute
[/quote]
It should be easy. If people are claiming that you lose all of this muscle during contest prep, NOT doing the contest prep logically means you keep the muscle.
[/quote]
that aint bodybuilding then, thats ProfessorXing
two different things
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
You do realize that being 305 and carrying 210lbs of LBM would put you over 30% BF right.[/quote]
I didn’t say those were my numbers. [/quote]
So what were you?
220lbs of LBM? 28% BF
230lbs of LBM? 25% BF
240lbs of LBM? 21% BF
Or am I still too high?[/quote]
250lbs of LBM? 18% BF?
260lbs of LBM? 15% BF?
Am I STILL too high???
Am I at least getting warmer?[/quote]
265lbs of LBM? 13% BF?
270lbs of LBM? 11ish% BF?
280lbs of LBM? 8% BF?
Come on man.
I HAD to have gotten it by now.
[/quote]
So the big one is a 6 year old Catahoula and the little one is a 3 month old shih tzu. Even when the big one finally gets tired or bored(mostly bored) the little one will just start like biting his ears or tail just waiting for the big one to take the bait and get back into the fight. And you know what? No matter how badly the big one wants to ignore the little one, even though he thinks he already won…well he just takes the bait and they keep going at it.
This was a really good thread but now its just shit
[quote]Waittz wrote:
So the big one is a 6 year old Catahoula and the little one is a 3 month old shih tzu. Even when the big one finally gets tired or bored(mostly bored) the little one will just start like biting his ears or tail just waiting for the big one to take the bait and get back into the fight. And you know what? No matter how badly the big one wants to ignore the little one, even though he thinks he already won…well he just takes the bait and they keep going at it. [/quote]
You just described my 2 dogs.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
So the big one is a 6 year old Catahoula and the little one is a 3 month old shih tzu. Even when the big one finally gets tired or bored(mostly bored) the little one will just start like biting his ears or tail just waiting for the big one to take the bait and get back into the fight. And you know what? No matter how badly the big one wants to ignore the little one, even though he thinks he already won…well he just takes the bait and they keep going at it. [/quote]
Well obviously I’m the Catahoula then.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
CT stated he has probably put on around 45 lbs of muscle due to training. CT has more muscle than PX imo. Yet PX has added 80lbs of muscle due to training. Somehow PX has added 35 lbs more muscle than CT has. And looking at the visual difference 35lbs of muscle makes (Dex vs. Stu), somethig isn’t quite adding up. But for the most part, we all know this.
It’s one thing to say you shouldn’t set limits on others, but I don’t think it’s necessary for one to inflate there own stats to make that point. [/quote]
CT also stated I was about 16-17% in CO so you may want to work on your numbers.
I am also taller than CT.[/quote]
True… but I also said that a lot of people grossly underestimate how much weight they have to lose. And that many competitors actually screw up because they use body fat percentage to plan out their prep.
The thing is that for each pound of fat you lose you normally lose 0.5lbs of water (these are not made up numbers that I’m just throwing out there). For some people it’s even more than that.
So let’s say that someone is at 260 and 18% body fat he actually has a lean body mass of about 218lbs. Since a true contest shape is about 5% if one simply use math about fat loss, it is easy to assume a stage weight of 230. But in reality to be in true contest condition that person would have to go down to about 208. And that is IF ZERO muscle loss occurs (which is unlikely if someone is natural, more likely if he is not).
So 260 at 18% means a stage weight of 208 if one comes in good condition.
The last contest I did I actually went up as high as 255 and still had abs outline (so about 15-16% body fat) and I actually ended up competing at 192. I actually screwed up the last two weeks because I panicked … I would probably ended up closer to 205-205 if I had not done so.
That why I say that there is a distinction between LEAN BODY MASS and MUSCLE MASS.
[quote]steven alex wrote:
This was a really good thread but now its just shit[/quote]
And then my girlfriend will start complaining about how the room was so clean before the dogs started going at it. But like, even though i enjoy a clean room, it is still so much fun to whatch them go at eachother making a mess of everything else.
When they finnally get tired and stop, well i get bored. Part of me even wants to provoke them to keep fighting for my own entertainment even though the room will stay messy. Usually i just take one of the little one’s favorite toys and give it to the big one. Works everytime.
So Prof X, do you feel that you dont have to answer Gregron’s question because you outweigh him by 50 lbs? …see what I did there?
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
CT stated he has probably put on around 45 lbs of muscle due to training. CT has more muscle than PX imo. Yet PX has added 80lbs of muscle due to training. Somehow PX has added 35 lbs more muscle than CT has. And looking at the visual difference 35lbs of muscle makes (Dex vs. Stu), somethig isn’t quite adding up. But for the most part, we all know this.
It’s one thing to say you shouldn’t set limits on others, but I don’t think it’s necessary for one to inflate there own stats to make that point. [/quote]
CT also stated I was about 16-17% in CO so you may want to work on your numbers.
I am also taller than CT.[/quote]
True… but I also said that a lot of people grossly underestimate how much weight they have to lose. And that many competitors actually screw up because they use body fat percentage to plan out their prep.
The thing is that for each pound of fat you lose you normally lose 0.5lbs of water (these are not made up numbers that I’m just throwing out there). For some people it’s even more than that.
So let’s say that someone is at 260 and 18% body fat he actually has a lean body mass of about 218lbs. Since a true contest shape is about 5% if one simply use math about fat loss, it is easy to assume a stage weight of 230. But in reality to be in true contest condition that person would have to go down to about 208. And that is IF ZERO muscle loss occurs (which is unlikely if someone is natural, more likely if he is not).
So 260 at 18% means a stage weight of 208 if one comes in good condition.
The last contest I did I actually went up as high as 255 and still had abs outline (so about 15-16% body fat) and I actually ended up competing at 192. I actually screwed up the last two weeks because I panicked … I would probably ended up closer to 205-205 if I had not done so.
That why I say that there is a distinction between LEAN BODY MASS and MUSCLE MASS.[/quote]
No argument there.
That is also why I made the comment about “contest shape”…because if passing these “limits” up is just a matter of NOT reaching contest levels of body fat, then they hold less significance to every other weight lifter as far as what can be done.
Most of the people here want to look good…but getting down to 7% isn’t necessary to achieve that.
[quote]GrindOverMatter wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]GrindOverMatter wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I think what needs to accepted is that apparently NOT competing allows you to make more progress. [/quote]
so not competing in bodybuilding allows you to make more progress in bodybuilding?
does not compute
[/quote]
It should be easy. If people are claiming that you lose all of this muscle during contest prep, NOT doing the contest prep logically means you keep the muscle.
[/quote]
that aint bodybuilding then, thats ProfessorXing
two different things
[/quote]
? Most of the people here in bodybuilding won’t compete…and I am guessing even less actually follow “natural bodybuilding” much at all.
I really hope some of you aren’t still arguing that no one is “bodybuilding” unless they are also competing.
I think the argument over semantics has been run into the ground.
yes, “recreational bodybuilder” or “non-competitive bodybuilder” are valid terms whether you want them to be or not.