[quote]GymTimeNYC wrote:
Not to stray off a topic. But what would you say is a good " beach weather " BF to have in the summer. To maintain to look real lean look with a six pack yet look a bit full at the same time.
If that makes sense.
[/quote]
Read the article CT wrote, linked by SS. I believe CT says there’s no reason to get above %10.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[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% NF right.[/quote]
I didn’t say those were my numbers. [/quote]
So what were you?
220lbs of LBM? 28% NF
230lbs of LBM? 25% NF
240lbs of LBM? 21% NF
Or am I still too high?[/quote]
250lbs of LBM? 18% NF?
260lbs of LBM? 15% NF?
Am I STILL too high???
Am I at least getting warmer?[/quote]
265lbs of LBM? 13% NF?
270lbs of LBM? 11ish% NF?
280lbs of LBM? 8% NF?
Come on man.
I HAD to have gotten it by now.
[/quote]
Am I still too high Prof?
What NF% were you at at 305?
FYI, I’m going to keep asking. I said I wouldn’t criticize your numbers in this thread, and i still won’t, if you posted them so it could have ended a page or two ago. Keep ignoring it and ill keep asking. Answer and its over. It’s not a hard question. You said that you knew what you were.
[/quote]
now you’re just getting annoying man. what does it matter to you?
i dont understand why everyone gets on a persons case if they’ve made more progress than others.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]GymTimeNYC wrote:
Not to stray off a topic. But what would you say is a good " beach weather " BF to have in the summer. To maintain to look real lean look with a six pack yet look a bit full at the same time.
If that makes sense.
[/quote]
Read the article CT wrote, linked by SS. I believe CT says there’s no reason to get above %10.
[/quote]
Can’t find link. Can anyone link it here
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[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]
this used to happen all the time lol.
X will come in bragging about how he is so big and broken all the perceived limitations we are putting on people, yet wont back up his claims and dodges all questions about it.
i think your definition of “not fat” differs from alot of people here X.
[quote]GymTimeNYC wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]GymTimeNYC wrote:
Not to stray off a topic. But what would you say is a good " beach weather " BF to have in the summer. To maintain to look real lean look with a six pack yet look a bit full at the same time.
If that makes sense.
[/quote]
Read the article CT wrote, linked by SS. I believe CT says there’s no reason to get above %10.
[/quote]
Can’t find link. Can anyone link it here [/quote]
Look up Truth About Bulking by CT.
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[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]
this used to happen all the time lol.
X will come in bragging about how he is so big and broken all the perceived limitations we are putting on people, yet wont back up his claims and dodges all questions about it.
i think your definition of “not fat” differs from alot of people here X. [/quote]
If he really wanted to he probably could compete at 230
[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]
Well, since he’s here to defend himself, I’d love to hear where he came up with such a ridiculously low and obviously wrong estimate.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
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]
True, I actually look better at 9-10% than at 6% because any lower than 8% I lose fullness regardless of what I do.
And I also agree that while competing is a great way to get motivated and accomplish something special, ultimately it can really limit your progress. Really, VERY few people will add even an ounce of muscle when dieting down for a show (unless they gradually add more and more drugs), maintaining your muscle mass is what most people who do things right accomplish, and a good 20-30% will lose some muscle.
So under the best circumstances, assuming a 12 weeks prep (which is fairly common, although more and more people are using 16 weeks preps now) it means that there will be 3 months out of each year where you do not gain muscle.
NOW… some people define “progress” as getting a more pleasing physique. In those people getting leaner without adding muscle is a big improvement. So they can till “progress”. But those who focus more on raw size (or strength for that matter) will progress at a slower pace if they decide to compete.
[/quote]
Question…since you saw me up close…do you think I was carrying more than 200lbs of lean body mass back then?
Some here seem distraught at this.[/quote]
Hilarious. Instead of actually reporting your bodyfat, you ask a guy to eyeball it. And to be frank, if CT thinks you were 16-17% in CO, then CT hasn’t done enough bodyfat testing.
[quote]myself1992 wrote:
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[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]
this used to happen all the time lol.
X will come in bragging about how he is so big and broken all the perceived limitations we are putting on people, yet wont back up his claims and dodges all questions about it.
i think your definition of “not fat” differs from alot of people here X. [/quote]
If he really wanted to he probably could compete at 230
[/quote]
depends if hes training and cutting natty, if not than think again. no natty competes @ 230.
Arnold at 6 2 was legally helped at how much?
not saying he’s natural, but lol
[quote]myself1992 wrote:
If he really wanted to he probably could compete at 230
[/quote]
I could compete at 230, It would just look like shit.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]GymTimeNYC wrote:
Not to stray off a topic. But what would you say is a good " beach weather " BF to have in the summer. To maintain to look real lean look with a six pack yet look a bit full at the same time.
If that makes sense.
[/quote]
Read the article CT wrote, linked by SS. I believe CT says there’s no reason to get above %10.
[/quote]
Definitely just got schooled with that article. Thanks
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]myself1992 wrote:
If he really wanted to he probably could compete at 230
[/quote]
I could compete at 230, It would just look like shit.[/quote]
Lol
I see you already found the article. One of the biggest points CT wrote from the article that finally sunk in when I first read it was this:
[b][i]What I’m trying to say is you can’t bully your body into building muscle by force-feeding it. Adding nutrients and calories will have a positive effect on muscle growth until you reach your saturation point. After that, any additional calories will be stored as body fat.
So while it’s true the more you eat the bigger you’ll get, the additional weight will be in the form of fat, not muscle tissue.[/i][/b]
300#
5’10"
lean
[quote] wrote:
[/quote]
I got to say that definitely hit home with me
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
I see you already found the article. One of the biggest points CT wrote from the article that finally sunk in when I first read it was this:
[b][i]What I’m trying to say is you can’t bully your body into building muscle by force-feeding it. Adding nutrients and calories will have a positive effect on muscle growth until you reach your saturation point. After that, any additional calories will be stored as body fat.
So while it’s true the more you eat the bigger you’ll get, the additional weight will be in the form of fat, not muscle tissue.[/i][/b][/quote]
Which brings us back to the name of the thread.
Think You Are Big But Just Fat.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
I see you already found the article. One of the biggest points CT wrote from the article that finally sunk in when I first read it was this:
[b][i]What I’m trying to say is you can’t bully your body into building muscle by force-feeding it. Adding nutrients and calories will have a positive effect on muscle growth until you reach your saturation point. After that, any additional calories will be stored as body fat.
So while it’s true the more you eat the bigger you’ll get, the additional weight will be in the form of fat, not muscle tissue.[/i][/b][/quote]
Best Article on T-Nation Ever.
[quote]Angus1 wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
I see you already found the article. One of the biggest points CT wrote from the article that finally sunk in when I first read it was this:
[b][i]What I’m trying to say is you can’t bully your body into building muscle by force-feeding it. Adding nutrients and calories will have a positive effect on muscle growth until you reach your saturation point. After that, any additional calories will be stored as body fat.
So while it’s true the more you eat the bigger you’ll get, the additional weight will be in the form of fat, not muscle tissue.[/i][/b][/quote]
Which brings us back to the name of the thread.
Think You Are Big But Just Fat.[/quote]
Exactly. I know that myself, and several others who seem more in touch with how actual science affects bodybuilding, as well as the verifiable stats of most top natural pros, have been echoing that sentiment for a long time on here.
While I’m all for the “power of positive thought” (heck, one of my degrees is in psychology, so I do get it when people talk about the mind making the body do things it doesn’t want to), it seems to be a all purpose argument lately with the talk of self imposed limits and such.
Fat is fat, and no matter how much you tell yourself that you’re ‘big’, just a little ‘smooth’, are looking ‘full house’ etc, it’s still not muscle tissue. If the final result is something you’re proud of in the mirror, then that’s great, and it’s what truly counts at the end of the day (unless you’re competing of course). Just don’t be one of those guys who beats their chest telling people how much muscle they’ve built when everything being claimed is well beyond every verifiable athlete’s stats over the last 50 years. Especially if you’re not willing to provide any objective proof (ie. bf tests etc). If you do that, well, expect people to constantly call you out -lol.
S