And are we talking LBM or muscle tissue in this thread? Because I see different posts going back and forth using different terms.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gregron wrote:
The âruleâ 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]
OKâŠso all of the argument about how fat I am was for what reason if you are now saying this?
LOL.
SoâŠno one can do itâŠor anyone who does will be called fat, obese or disqualified.
The last 2 pages of people talking about body comp were for what?[/quote]
That was a new topic obviously. A shoot off of the original. (Which is actually a shoot off of the OPâs original topic lol)
But you already know this and just want to argue.
So Prof, how âNOT fatâ weâre you?
305lbs with how much LBM since you knew? Want me to list my guesses again?
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
And are we talking LBM or muscle tissue in this thread? Because I see different posts going back and forth using different terms.[/quote]
That hasnât been fully agreed upon TBH.
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
And are we talking LBM or muscle tissue in this thread? Because I see different posts going back and forth using different terms.[/quote]
I dont think gregron has waivered or moved the goal posts in his argument at all since he initially called foul on anyone gaining eighty pounds muscle as an adult not undernourished natty. But there is a haziness to what the initial points were as so many peoples input has clouded the issue. I am sure greg can reiterate what the initial bone of contention was and clarify the point again
[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]
So, if you went from approximately %10 bf at 150lbs to - and letâs just use this figure for arguments sake - %30 bf at 305, then you gained 80lbs of LBM during that period. Obviously, if you were leaner than %30 you gained even more.
Doesnât seem unreasonable to me.
[quote]steven alex wrote:
[quote]super saiyan wrote:
And are we talking LBM or muscle tissue in this thread? Because I see different posts going back and forth using different terms.[/quote]
I dont think gregron has waivered or moved the goal posts in his argument at all since he initially called foul on anyone gaining eighty pounds muscle as an adult not undernourished natty. But there is a haziness to what the initial points were as so many peoples input has clouded the issue. I am sure greg can reiterate what the initial bone of contention was and clarify the point again [/quote]
You nailed it Steven.
There has been a lot of people adding in their thoughts, ideas and experiences which is great but it seems like the initial point that Brick brought up in this thread has been slightly lost in translation.
If people want to argue LBM or just muscle tissue (more of a stage weight comparison) then thatâs on them to clarify IMO. I donât want to speak for others, I just want to give my own opinions and thoughts and discuss training philosophies and what not.
Weâre all here for entertainment and I find these types of discussions enjoyable.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[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]
So, if you went from approximately %10 bf at 150lbs to - and letâs just use this figure for arguments sake - %30 bf at 305, then you gained 80lbs of LBM during that period. Obviously, if you were leaner than %30 you gained even more.
Doesnât seem unreasonable to me.
[/quote]
That is all I was saying. I also know people with way better genetics than me so running around telling people it canât be done when people are doing it makes no sense.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[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]
So, if you went from approximately %10 bf at 150lbs to - and letâs just use this figure for arguments sake - %30 bf at 305, then you gained 80lbs of LBM during that period. Obviously, if you were leaner than %30 you gained even more.
Doesnât seem unreasonable to me.
[/quote]
Redo your math. 
Besides, this is the reason that the whole sumo wrestling analogy is stupid, IMO. No one cares if a sumo wrestler has gained 80 lbs of LBM when they look like sumo wrestlers.
I donât think contest condition is a good indicator either, because not everyone wants to compete. There needs to be a reasonable standard in between the 2 extremes (personally, 30% is much too high, IMO, but this will vary from person to person). If your math was correct (which itâs not), and X had maintained all the LBM he had at 305, than I think weâd be in agreement.
But yeah, redo your math.
Professor X I understand from a few posts that you once took pro hormones could I ask you how long you took them for and do you think that it had any bearing on you gaining the amount of mass you carry now or do you think you would have gained the same amount of mass without taking them within perhaps a longer timeframe?
%10 bf at 150 = 135lbs of LBM
%30 bf at 305 = 213.5 of LBM
Are you quibbling over the difference of 1.5lbs?
I was using round numbers to make the math straight forward.
My brain is fried so if Iâve made an error point it out to me.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
%10 bf at 150 = 135lbs of LBM
%30 bf at 305 = 213.5 of LBM
Are you quibbling over the difference of 1.5lbs?
I was using round numbers to make the math straight forward.[/quote]
That part of my post was just messing with you (hence the smiley), the real point was that using someone as high as 30% bf is ridiculous, IMO.
I made that point about sumo wrestlers probably like 10 pages ago. Not that 30% is sumo wrestler status, but itâs not looking good status either, IMO.
This thread is ridiculous.
If youâve dieted down at least once, youâll know what to look for and how to gauge your progress and your lbm-to-bf ratio best.
If you havenât, you should get a DEXA scan.
If youâre big and think youâre not fat, the best way is to let average non-lifting people decide. They usually donât care all that much for tree-trunk legs, boulder shoulders, big guns, bulging pecs, shapely glutes and a thick wide back: they just take a look at you and instantly decide if youâre fat or not. Of course, proportions and clothing can play a big role in making one look better or worse.
So, I sez, the best way to gauge your progress is to go swimming, mebbe prance a bit around (in a cool way, of course) and see how people react to your body. Are the boyz envious? Are the gals like âWowsers! I bet he can break me in half and screw me six ways from sunday!â swoon
If youâve got a lot of muscle mass and fat, youâre fat, no matter how athletic, muscular and strong you are (been there, done that).
I didnât want to weigh in on the whole Professor X debate, but HeavyTriple was out of line guesstimating Professor Xâs (do you have some other name, dude? Youâre no professor, youâre a dentist.) bodyfat to be closer to 30 % than to 20 %. Thatâs kinda ridiculous: didnât he recently provide a frontal body shot (not seriously flexed, afaik) where you could see some of his abs, rather little pec fat, semi-conditioned arms and delts? Came across as a whimpy sucker punch.
If I were Professor X and went to the trouble of actually providing photos to shut the naysayers up regarding the body fat allegations, Iâd provide body shots in boxers in good lighting: frontal, back and side poses to get an appreciation of his body fat distribution and muscle mass.
If it were me, though, Iâd trim down (Iâm sure that bodyâd look much more impressive with less bodyfat) and not provide photos at all. Why try and convince strangers how big my dick is? People will always try to tell you youâve got a shlort, now matter how gargantuan and sleek of a shlong you actually sport. And if youâre going out of your way to actually meet and show them your meat, theyâll cry ârape, rapeâ.
Hereâs a few tiaras for all of you. And thanks for carrying this thread, all of you: itâs really entertaining.
-
FF, a hetero hunk in e-love with all of you.
-
Iâm also way cooler than all of you combined (yes, I know that CT posted in here: his Quebecois accent takes away from his many cool points, but being a European and fluent in French, I might be a tad biased)
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
I didnât want to weigh in on the whole Professor X debate, but HeavyTriple was out of line guesstimating Professor Xâs (do you have some other name, dude? Youâre no professor, youâre a dentist.) bodyfat to be closer to 30 % than to 20 %. Thatâs kinda ridiculous: didnât he recently provide a frontal body shot (not seriously flexed, afaik) where you could see some of his abs, rather little pec fat, semi-conditioned arms and delts? Came across as a whimpy sucker punch.
[/quote]
This is what it comes down toâŠthis is all some of these guys are here forâŠand at this point, all it is doing is stopping any real discussion from happening.
Guys acting like I am obese in these discussions make themselves looks silly when one well known trainer here worked with me in person and disagrees with all of this negative crap.
Honestly, if this is all some of you want these forums to be, keep cheering this on.
[quote]steven alex wrote:
Professor X I understand from a few posts that you once took pro hormones could I ask you how long you took them for and do you think that it had any bearing on you gaining the amount of mass you carry now or do you think you would have gained the same amount of mass without taking them within perhaps a longer timeframe?[/quote]
I took MAG-10, a pro hormone sold on this site back in the early 00âs. Anything you do has bearing with how much mass you have now, but I donât see people pointing out Stuâs use of pro-hormones around the exact same time period.
Bottom line, the only reason you are hearing it now is because the yelps of me being â30% body fatâ donât seem to be sticking anymore and CT just wrote I am above 200lbs of lean body mass.
If YOU want to believe taking some pro-hormones ten years ago somehow wipes out the fact that I was pretty damn big at that time to start with, so be it.
I think I had gotten to over 270lbs before ever using MAG-10.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
Professor X I understand from a few posts that you once took pro hormones could I ask you how long you took them for and do you think that it had any bearing on you gaining the amount of mass you carry now or do you think you would have gained the same amount of mass without taking them within perhaps a longer timeframe?[/quote]
I took MAG-10, a pro hormone sold on this site back in the early 00âs. Anything you do has bearing with how much mass you have now, but I donât see people pointing out Stuâs use of pro-hormones around the exact same time period.
Bottom line, the only reason you are hearing it now is because the yelps of me being â30% body fatâ donât seem to be sticking anymore and CT just wrote I am above 200lbs of lean body mass.
If YOU want to believe taking some pro-hormones ten years ago somehow wipes out the fact that I was pretty damn big at that time to start with, so be it.
I think I had gotten to over 270lbs before ever using MAG-10.[/quote]
I was curious because there must be a time factor involved in whether gear disqualifies a person from being natural or not. I mean if I took a single pill or injection fifteen years ago does that mean I am not a natural? I think non naturals are surely those who took stuff over a consistent and lengthy timeframe
[quote]steven alex wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]steven alex wrote:
Professor X I understand from a few posts that you once took pro hormones could I ask you how long you took them for and do you think that it had any bearing on you gaining the amount of mass you carry now or do you think you would have gained the same amount of mass without taking them within perhaps a longer timeframe?[/quote]
I took MAG-10, a pro hormone sold on this site back in the early 00âs. Anything you do has bearing with how much mass you have now, but I donât see people pointing out Stuâs use of pro-hormones around the exact same time period.
Bottom line, the only reason you are hearing it now is because the yelps of me being â30% body fatâ donât seem to be sticking anymore and CT just wrote I am above 200lbs of lean body mass.
If YOU want to believe taking some pro-hormones ten years ago somehow wipes out the fact that I was pretty damn big at that time to start with, so be it.
I think I had gotten to over 270lbs before ever using MAG-10.[/quote]
I was curious because there must be a time factor involved in whether gear disqualifies a person from being natural or not. I mean if I took a single pill or injection fifteen years ago does that mean I am not a natural? I think non naturals are surely those who took stuff over a consistent and lengthy timeframe
[/quote]
Dude, most people do NOT go by shit like that. If I know someone used steroids 15 years ago, I am NOT assuming that there is still influence.
You only hear this in terms of ânatural bodybuilding contestsâ because some contests have different guidelines.
Some may not allow any use of prohormones or steroids EVER. Others give a time limit.
You are hearing it here because some of these guys are literally just here to shout down anyone who says they actually made that much progressâŠwhich is now why you apparently need to be underwater weighed on video from day one in the gym by scientists to be able to make any statements about progress.
Donât fall for the hype.
No, the one time use of a steroid or hormone, while everything adds into a cumulative effect, does not have such drastic changes on body comp for the rest of the life of the individual.
If anything, some of those pros get fat as hell when they come off and lose a great deal of muscle if most was built only on the juice.
âŠhow much lbm some black guy on the Internet claims to have had at some point in his life.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
âŠhow much lbm some black guy on the Internet claims to have had at some point in his life.[/quote]
I thought you more than most
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
This thread is ridiculous.
If youâve dieted down at least once, youâll know what to look for and how to gauge your progress and your lbm-to-bf ratio best.
[/quote]
Trying to compare LBM gains on a lifter using a different starting and ending standard doesnât make sense to me. Itâs like estimating a lifters 1RM based on their best 6RM, might be close, but itâs really just a shot in the dark.
If we say a lifter began at 150lb/10%BF then the only true LBM gained is what is there the next time they are at 10%. Everthing else is just imaginary.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]FattyFat wrote:
This thread is ridiculous.
If youâve dieted down at least once, youâll know what to look for and how to gauge your progress and your lbm-to-bf ratio best.
[/quote]
Trying to compare LBM gains on a lifter using a different starting and ending standard doesnât make sense to me. Itâs like estimating a lifters 1RM based on their best 6RM, might be close, but itâs really just a shot in the dark.
If we say a lifter began at 150lb/10%BF then the only true LBM gained is what is there the next time they are at 10%. Everthing else is just imaginary. [/quote]
What do you mean imaginary? So you are saying PX would have to diet down to 10% (or whatever it was at 150 lbs) to truly measure the amount of LBM he has?