6 ft
285#
lean Rich Piana - MMA Training - YouTube
google pmma rich piana
I read a bit about that. His arms look synthetic, but I just posted that to show just how big a lean 285 looks.
[quote]gregron wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
[quote]zraw wrote:
Gh15 calls the 7-9% zone the twilight body confusion zone[/quote]
So you have:
5-6% = DAAAAAMMMMN zone
7-9% = Twilight bidy confusion zone
10-15% = Fit zone
16-22% = The body fat dead zone
25%+ = FULL HOUSE ZONE
[/quote]
I lolād.[/quote]
Me too[/quote]
OMFG ME 3
I know man, and the look itself isnāt that bad, I just posted that because I thought it would be interesting for people
[quote]myself1992 wrote:
I know man, and the look itself isnāt that bad, I just posted that because I thought it would be interesting for people[/quote]
Yup, definitely was interesting to read up on that.
[quote]HeavyTriple 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 isnāt quite adding up. But for the most part, we all know this.
Itās one thing to say you shouldnāt set limits on others, but I donāt think itās 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 heās here to defend himself, Iād love to hear where he came up with such a ridiculously low and obviously wrong estimate.[/quote]
Seriously, I would take CTās word over yours or anyone else here.
I am a little surprised that the man just stated as such but here you are saying he doesnāt know what he is talking about?
Serious questionā¦why even have an attitude like this?
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:
Itās called the body fat deadzoneā¦ when someone has some muscle anything between 15 and 20-22% roughly looks the sameā¦ because you are not lean enough to have any definition but not fat enough (especially when you have a lot of muscle) to really look out of shape.
It was only a quick visual assessment, and PX never took his tank top off. So he very well might have been 22% body fat (maybe even a bit more since I didnāt get to see the stomach) or he could have been 16%. I actually didnāt make a big point of it, only using that number to give him and idea of the weight he would have to compete in if he was in true contest shape.[/quote]
What I suspected was that you hadnāt seen him without his shirt off, so thanks for confirming. I also he agree that he LOOKED to be about 20% in the videos, maybe a little more. But again, having dealt with guys his size and body composition, that 20% is probably closer to 30%.
The problem is every common measurement technique (including calipers) only measures subcutaneous fat and estimates visceral fat. Unfortunately for the sake of accuracy, visceral fat accounts for around 50% of total bodyfat. And guys who are big and carrying a lot of fat are not accounted for in the equations used to determine BF from calipers, so their visceral fat estimates are usually too low.
Underwater weighing measures the visceral fat and subcutaneous fat, which is why you see such discrepancies between measurements with guys with similar body composition to X.[/quote]
Unless some of you really believe I am carrying less than 200lbs of lean body mass, which CT also just wrote that I am, then I beat that āno one can reach 80lbs of lean mass gainā limit.
That is all that is being said.
If you really have a problem with that, you need to ask yourself why.
Hey Prof X, what did you weigh when you were 21?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Hey Prof X, what did you weigh when you were 21?[/quote]
About 200-210lbs.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]HeavyTriple 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 isnāt quite adding up. But for the most part, we all know this.
Itās one thing to say you shouldnāt set limits on others, but I donāt think itās 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 heās here to defend himself, Iād love to hear where he came up with such a ridiculously low and obviously wrong estimate.[/quote]
Seriously, I would take CTās word over yours or anyone else here.
I am a little surprised that the man just stated as such but here you are saying he doesnāt know what he is talking about?
Serious questionā¦why even have an attitude like this?[/quote]
You would also apparently take his word over actually having your bodyfat measured accurately.
Did you even read what he wrote about the bodyfat dead-zone?
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
You would also apparently take his word over actually having your bodyfat measured accurately.
Did you even read what he wrote about the bodyfat dead-zone?[/quote]
? Yes, I didā¦and I watched you relate what he said about being around 20% body fat to being ā30%ā which is ridiculous.
I rarely get my body fat tested so even arguing that is pointless.
I asked CT if he thought I was less than 200lbs of lean body mass to avoid this from guys like you.
His answer carries more weight.
You can believe what you want, but there is no way in hell I am over 20% body fat right now and if I am carrying over 200lbs of lean body mass, I passed up the rule.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Hey Prof X, what did you weigh when you were 21?[/quote]
About 200-210lbs.[/quote]
What age/weight are you using as your starting point?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Hey Prof X, what did you weigh when you were 21?[/quote]
About 200-210lbs.[/quote]
What age/weight are you using as your starting point?[/quote]
18 150lbs.
I am one of the few who was still skinny at the age of 18 which to me would be more significant.
āThe thing is that for each pound of fat you lose you normally lose 0.5lbs of water (these are not made up numbers that Iām just throwing out there).ā - CT
Iāve been ponderān on this point. Where does this half a pound of water come from? Is that the water thatās in the fat, or is it water from other lean body mass tissue? Are you saying you lose LBM in the form of water, even if you donāt lose muscle?
The āruleā has ALWAYS been about natural trainees. Not someone who used pro hormones (which were cometely legit and legal at the time)
Are people forgetting this?
[quote]gregron wrote:
The āruleā has ALWAYS been about natural trainees. Not someone who used pro hormones (which were cometely legit and legal at the time)
Are people forgetting this?[/quote]
OKā¦so all of the argument about how fat I am was for what reason if you are now saying this?
LOL.
Soā¦no one can do itā¦or anyone who does will be called fat, obese or disqualified.
The last 2 pages of people talking about body comp were for what?
[quote]gregron wrote:
The āruleā has ALWAYS been about natural trainees. Not someone who used pro hormones (which were cometely legit and legal at the time)
Are people forgetting this?[/quote]
Wouldnt the taking of pro hormones be less of a concern if the duration of taking them was short? I would doubt very much if a brief period of taking pro hormones would flick a switch that would mean gaining muscle would be a lot easier even once you had stopped.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Hey Prof X, what did you weigh when you were 21?[/quote]
About 200-210lbs.[/quote]
What age/weight are you using as your starting point?[/quote]
18 150lbs.
I am one of the few who was still skinny at the age of 18 which to me would be more significant.[/quote]
How much LBM are you assuming you had back then and what number are you assuming today?
[quote]steven alex wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
The āruleā has ALWAYS been about natural trainees. Not someone who used pro hormones (which were cometely legit and legal at the time)
Are people forgetting this?[/quote]
Wouldnt the taking of pro hormones be less of a concern if the duration of taking them was short? I would doubt very much if a brief period of taking pro hormones would flick a switch that would mean gaining muscle would be a lot easier even once you had stopped.
[/quote]
Who really knows though? Who knows how that actually effects the bodies ability to add/hold extra LBM and who also knows how brief or long the pro hormone use actually was?
Too many questions which is why the discussion has always been about nattys.