Think You Are Big But Just Fat

Training
841

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]FattyFat wrote:
This thread is ridiculous.

If you’ve dieted down at least once, you’ll 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 doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like estimating a lifters 1RM based on their best 6RM, might be close, but it’s 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?[/quote]

Yes…and the same applies to everyone.

842

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]FattyFat wrote:
This thread is ridiculous.

If you’ve dieted down at least once, you’ll 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 doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like estimating a lifters 1RM based on their best 6RM, might be close, but it’s 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]

You’ve said this before and I don’t see where I contradicted your statement.

843

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Bottom line, the only reason you are hearing it now is because the yelps of me being “30% body fat” don’t seem to be sticking anymore and CT just wrote I am above 200lbs of lean body mass.
[/quote]

Didn’t the 30% BF topic originally come up in reference to you’re not fat 305lbs at 5’10?

844

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]FattyFat wrote:
This thread is ridiculous.

If you’ve dieted down at least once, you’ll 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 doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like estimating a lifters 1RM based on their best 6RM, might be close, but it’s 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]

100% agree

845

[quote]FattyFat wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]FattyFat wrote:
This thread is ridiculous.

If you’ve dieted down at least once, you’ll 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 doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like estimating a lifters 1RM based on their best 6RM, might be close, but it’s 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]

You’ve said this before and I don’t see where I contradicted your statement.
[/quote]

Not implying a contradiction, we have concurring opinions.
I was trying to re-enforce the point about the value/importance dieting down.

846

[quote]zraw wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]FattyFat wrote:
This thread is ridiculous.

If you’ve dieted down at least once, you’ll 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 doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like estimating a lifters 1RM based on their best 6RM, might be close, but it’s 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]

100% agree

[/quote]

x2

847

If 30% at 305lbs = 213 lbm – 92lbs fat

If 255lbs = -50lbs… 35 from fat 15 from water

Then 255lbs = 22% bodyfat

Then 225 lbs = -20lbs fat - 10lbs water

Then 225lbs = 37lbs fat = 16% bodyfat

SO

225 - 20lbs fat and lets pretend water magically doesnt flush at all at this point

205 lbs - 17lbs fat
205 lbs = 8.3% bodyfat

And then we wanna compete

205lbs - 10lbs fat - 5lbs water
190lbs - 7lbs fat

SO we compete at 190lbs at a bf of 3.7%

Pretty cool uh

848

Just to reiterate (correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t usually go back and recheck things in threads like this - you know, messy ones -lol), didn’t CT say he competed at about 205 lbs?

S

849

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
Just to reiterate (correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t usually go back and recheck things in threads like this - you know, messy ones -lol), didn’t CT say he competed at about 205 lbs?

S[/quote]

I think it was somewhere around there.

850

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

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]

192 but shouldve been 205 (a 13 lbs screw up is mega huge… even with diuretics… imo?)

(not meant to shit on CT here, at all)

851

[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?

250lbs of LBM? 18% NF?
260lbs of LBM? 15% NF?

Am I STILL too high???

Am I at least getting warmer?

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.

Am I still too high Prof?

What NF% were you at at 305?

852

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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 00’s. Anything you do has bearing with how much mass you have now, but I don’t see people pointing out Stu’s 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 “30% body fat” don’t 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 “natural bodybuilding contests” 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 progress…which 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.

Don’t 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.[/quote]

Long term steroid use can give a person advantage for life because of increased satellite cells. If a pro got fat when he retired and lost more muscle than necessary (obviously there will be some muscle mass) it’s because he chose to not continue training or the same type of training and adequate nutrition.

If a guy builds a sufficient amount of muscle with roids, not all of it is lost simply because he built it “only with juice”. Dorian doesn’t walk around at a semi-lean 275 while retired and with more relaxed eating. He retained much mass because of years of a 1g+ dose regimen and continuing to train well past retirement.

853

[quote]BrickHead wrote:

Long term steroid use can give a person advantage for life because of increased satellite cells. If a pro got fat when he retired and lost more muscle than necessary (obviously there will be some muscle mass) it’s because he chose to not continue training or the same type of training and adequate nutrition. [/quote]

Yeah, the key being LONG TERM USE. Some guy doing a cycle of steroids back in 1995 isn’t causing some permanent change to physiology. Other than that, we are speaking in generalities.

??? That isn’t what I said. From what I have seen, guys who start early drug use and do not build a solid base first make the most drastic changes in terms of loss of muscle mass and gain of body fat when they come off. That is simply because they have no real clue how to build that kind of size with their own unaided physiology.

You can argue that all you want, but at least show you can grasp what the point is first.

854

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]FattyFat wrote:
This thread is ridiculous.

If you’ve dieted down at least once, you’ll 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 doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like estimating a lifters 1RM based on their best 6RM, might be close, but it’s 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]

Every aspect of this, as it has been throughout bodybyuilding history to this point, is about generalities.

Until the day comes that you all get a new UNTRAINED person and underwater weigh them on video…then train them for 20 years and take readings the entire way…and then do the exact same on a few thousand other people, what you are implying is impossible.

Even if a lifter did diet down to where he was as a newb, you are talking about YEARS or even DECADES WORTH OF DIFFERENCE…to which there are also changes in organ mass, skeletal density, and tendon density…which would change the final point again.

That means you could NEVER recreate the exact same physiology unless someone ONLY gained muscle and did so in a way as to not affect any other organs…which is impossible.

That is why you can’t even approach this that way.

855

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
Trying to compare LBM gains on a lifter using a different starting and ending standard doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like estimating a lifters 1RM based on their best 6RM, might be close, but it’s 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]

Every aspect of this, as it has been throughout bodybyuilding history to this point, is about generalities.

Until the day comes that you all get a new UNTRAINED person and underwater weigh them on video…then train them for 20 years and take readings the entire way…and then do the exact same on a few thousand other people, what you are implying is impossible.

Even if a lifter did diet down to where he was as a newb, you are talking about YEARS or even DECADES WORTH OF DIFFERENCE…to which there are also changes in organ mass, skeletal density, and tendon density…which would change the final point again.

That means you could NEVER recreate the exact same physiology unless someone ONLY gained muscle and did so in a way as to not affect any other organs…which is impossible.

That is why you can’t even approach this that way.[/quote]

All valid points in absolute terms.
From a pratical perspective; it is the way to approach it.
We can never recreate the exact cirumstances twice while boiling a gallon of water, but we have a good handle on predicting how long it will take…+ or -.
It’s an ‘exception or rule’ kinda thing. You are a former and I am a latter.

856

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

All valid points in absolute terms.
From a pratical perspective; it is the way to approach it. [/quote]

Right…which is all we can do is use what we have…and honestly, unless these people claiming some exact specific limit demanded the same kind of testing on the guys they used to come up with this “ceiling of genetic ability” then even saying some specific limit is pointless.

Bottom line, there are guys out there with amazing genetics…so if someone with lesser genetics did it, to claim no one can makes no sense.

857

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

All valid points in absolute terms.
From a pratical perspective; it is the way to approach it. [/quote]

Right…which is all we can do is use what we have…and honestly, unless these people claiming some exact specific limit demanded the same kind of testing on the guys they used to come up with this “ceiling of genetic ability” then even saying some specific limit is pointless.

Bottom line, there are guys out there with amazing genetics…so if someone with lesser genetics did it, to claim no one can makes no sense.[/quote]

Word. : )

858

I think 80 lbs is a great general limit.

I was under 140 lbs a bit over a year ago at the age of 22. I’d look pretty ridiculous at 220 at that same bodyfat level, and I can say for a certainty that getting those results would really be pushing it drug-free. Who really cares about outliers? We all know what we want to achieve, but not everyone has a realistic idea of what they need to do drug-wise to get there. I think having that realistic idea will only help you in getting to your destination.

859

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
I think 80 lbs is a great general limit.[/quote]

Why would you even be interested in making a specific limit?

Seriously. If you are just bent on telling someone something, the way to do it and be way more scientifically accurate is to give a range, not some specific limit that people are literally passing up in front of you.

860

It also works the other way, it’s smart to change your goals when you realize you don’t want to do all that is necessary to get there. For example, look at austinbicep. At one point he said he wanted to be an IFBB pro and was bulking like crazy. Now he’s changed his goals to I believe physique or so because (I’m assuming) he has a more realistic idea of what’s up, and that as a normal guy, he doesn’t want to take a boatload of drugs and all the $/legal risk/etc that comes with the territory. What’s wrong with being grounded and properly planning?