Think You Are Big But Just Fat

Training
881

[quote]red04 wrote:
This may seem really picky, but as sort-of math person I find the glossing over of this fact very annoying: Going from Weight A to weight B at the same bodyfat does not mean you gained that much lean mass(not even muscle), because to stay at the same bodyfat % while gaining weight, you also gain fat.

15% Bodyfat at 160 = 24lbs of fat
15% at 240 = 36(12lbs of 80 gained are fat, 68 LBM)
10% at 240 = 24(0 lbs of 80 gained are fat, 80 LBM)
15% at 255 =~38(14lbs of 95 gained are fat, 81 LBM)

This calculation will skew worse the higher % BF you start from, because that % of mass gains will be fat.

A trainee needs to either get leaner(a not negligible amount leaner), or gain more mass.

OMG WHAT A NERD THIS IS A BODYBUILDING BOARD NOBODY CARES ABOUT NIT PICKY SHIT LIKE THIS. Sorry =[.[/quote]

Seriously never thought about it in that way, nice!

882

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
I just ordered the dead squat bar. i am exited to have a trap bar that i can put 500 plus pounds of bumper plates on.

[/quote]

LOLā€¦love it.[/quote]

haha

883

[quote]red04 wrote:
This may seem really picky, but as sort-of math person I find the glossing over of this fact very annoying: Going from Weight A to weight B at the same bodyfat does not mean you gained that much lean mass(not even muscle), because to stay at the same bodyfat % while gaining weight, you also gain fat.

15% Bodyfat at 160 = 24lbs of fat
15% at 240 = 36(12lbs of 80 gained are fat, 68 LBM)
10% at 240 = 24(0 lbs of 80 gained are fat, 80 LBM)
15% at 255 =~38(14lbs of 95 gained are fat, 81 LBM)

This calculation will skew worse the higher % BF you start from, because that % of mass gains will be fat.

A trainee needs to either get leaner(a not negligible amount leaner), or gain more mass.

OMG WHAT A NERD THIS IS A BODYBUILDING BOARD NOBODY CARES ABOUT NIT PICKY SHIT LIKE THIS. Sorry =[.[/quote]

I knew that before you wrote so but no need to focus on facts when you believe !

884

[quote]red04 wrote:
This may seem really picky, but as sort-of math person I find the glossing over of this fact very annoying: Going from Weight A to weight B at the same bodyfat does not mean you gained that much lean mass(not even muscle), because to stay at the same bodyfat % while gaining weight, you also gain fat.

15% Bodyfat at 160 = 24lbs of fat
15% at 240 = 36(12lbs of 80 gained are fat, 68 LBM)
10% at 240 = 24(0 lbs of 80 gained are fat, 80 LBM)
15% at 255 =~38(14lbs of 95 gained are fat, 81 LBM)

This calculation will skew worse the higher % BF you start from, because that % of mass gains will be fat.
[/quote]

Yesā€¦the balance of the calculation would be required.

885

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
so keep the questions coming.[/quote]

You really have an education (a degree) in genetics?

S[/quote]

I have a degree in Biology and Biochemistry of which genetics is a component to earn the degree. I also have genetics lab experience with gene splicing on lab rats in Iowa at the U o I.[/quote]

A simple ā€œnoā€ would suffice.

What were your numbers?[/quote]

? I was part of a lab research team doing thrombomodulin gene research. How is that a ā€œnoā€? It means I have clinical experience in the area as well as the courses taken in college for genetics.

What is the deal with some of you acting like this? I was asked a question and I answered.

886

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
It also works the other way, itā€™s smart to change your goals when you realize you donā€™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 heā€™s changed his goals to I believe physique or so because (Iā€™m assuming) he has a more realistic idea of whatā€™s up, and that as a normal guy, he doesnā€™t want to take a boatload of drugs and all the $/legal risk/etc that comes with the territory. Whatā€™s wrong with being grounded and properly planning?[/quote]

x2
Same for me.

887

[quote]BrickHead wrote:
Thereā€™s been some work done regarding the issue.

Kouri EM, et. al.Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids. Clin J Sport Med. (1995) 5(4):223-8.

We calculated fat-free mass index (FFMI) in a sample of 157 male athletes, comprising 83 users of anabolic-androgenic steroids and 74 nonusers. FFMI is defined by the formula (fat-free body mass in kg) x (height in meters)-2. We then added a slight correction of 6.3 x (1.80 m ? height) to normalize these values to the height of a 1.8-m man. The normalized FFMI values of athletes who had not used steroids extended up to a well-defined limit of 25.0. Similarly, a sample of 20 Mr. America winners from the presteroid era (1939-1959), for whom we estimated the normalized FFMI, had a mean FFMI of 25.4. By contrast, the FFMI of many of the steroid users in our sample easily exceeded 25.0, and that of some even exceeded 30. Thus, although these findings must be regarded as preliminary, it appears that FFMI may represent a useful initial measure to screen for possible steroid abuse, especially in athletic, medical, or forensic situations in which individuals may attempt to deny such behavior.
[/quote]

I think the issue of genetics isnā€™t hitting home. The question isnā€™t whether some guys who competed were looked at. It is why you think these guys who were looked at (mind you these are ESTIMATES USED IN THIS ā€œSTUDYā€) represent every other human on the planet.

For one, you would have to ignore that the majority of the people looked at seem to be of only one racial group with very few minorities even present over the years.

888

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
so keep the questions coming.[/quote]

You really have an education (a degree) in genetics?

S[/quote]

I have a degree in Biology and Biochemistry of which genetics is a component to earn the degree. I also have genetics lab experience with gene splicing on lab rats in Iowa at the U o I.[/quote]

A simple ā€œnoā€ would suffice.

What were your numbers?[/quote]

? I was part of a lab research team doing thrombomodulin gene research. How is that a ā€œnoā€? It means I have clinical experience in the area as well as the courses taken in college for genetics.

What is the deal with some of you acting like this? I was asked a question and I answered.[/quote]

Itā€™s a ā€œnoā€ because you donā€™t have a degree in genetics.

Apparently dentist = biologist, geneticist, physicist, anthropologist, cheeseburger enthusiast.

What is it with you always trying to trump up your degree/profession as if you are a physician?

889

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
so keep the questions coming.[/quote]

You really have an education (a degree) in genetics?

S[/quote]

I have a degree in Biology and Biochemistry of which genetics is a component to earn the degree. I also have genetics lab experience with gene splicing on lab rats in Iowa at the U o I.[/quote]

A simple ā€œnoā€ would suffice.

What were your numbers?[/quote]

? I was part of a lab research team doing thrombomodulin gene research. How is that a ā€œnoā€? It means I have clinical experience in the area as well as the courses taken in college for genetics.

What is the deal with some of you acting like this? I was asked a question and I answered.[/quote]

Itā€™s a ā€œnoā€ because you donā€™t have a degree in genetics.

Apparently dentist = biologist, geneticist, physicist, anthropologist, cheeseburger enthusiast.

What is it with you always trying to trump up your degree/profession as if you are a physician?[/quote]

? I took genetics in college. That means yes, I have an education in genetics. I also worked in a genetics lab as part of a teamā€¦which means clinical knowledge as well. Most of the guys doing research in genetics do NOT have ā€œgeneticsā€ degrees, doofus. The doctor doing the thrombomodulin gene research did NOT have a genetics degreeā€¦but he was over the testing.

Look, we get itā€¦this is fun for some of you.

The thing is, it just makes some of you look a little slow.

890

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
so keep the questions coming.[/quote]

You really have an education (a degree) in genetics?

S[/quote]

I have a degree in Biology and Biochemistry of which genetics is a component to earn the degree. I also have genetics lab experience with gene splicing on lab rats in Iowa at the U o I.[/quote]

A simple ā€œnoā€ would suffice.

What were your numbers?[/quote]

? I was part of a lab research team doing thrombomodulin gene research. How is that a ā€œnoā€? It means I have clinical experience in the area as well as the courses taken in college for genetics.

What is the deal with some of you acting like this? I was asked a question and I answered.[/quote]

Itā€™s a ā€œnoā€ because you donā€™t have a degree in genetics.

Apparently dentist = biologist, geneticist, physicist, anthropologist, cheeseburger enthusiast.

What is it with you always trying to trump up your degree/profession as if you are a physician?[/quote]

? I took genetics in college. That means yes, I have an education in genetics. I also worked in a genetics lab as part of a teamā€¦which means clinical knowledge as well. Most of the guys doing research in genetics do NOT have ā€œgeneticsā€ degrees, doofus. The doctor doing the thrombomodulin gene research did NOT have a genetics degreeā€¦but he was over the testing.

Look, we get itā€¦this is fun for some of you.

The thing is, it just makes some of you look a little slow.[/quote]

So just to recap, you do NOT have a degree in genetics, correct?

891

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

So just to recap, you do NOT have a degree in genetics, correct?[/quote]

Never said I did. That is like saying you need a degree in ā€œanatomyā€. It is usually part of a larger degree unless specializing.

892

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

So just to recap, you do NOT have a degree in genetics, correct?[/quote]

Never said I did. That is like saying you need a degree in ā€œanatomyā€. It is usually part of a larger degree unless specializing.[/quote]

[quote]gregron wrote:
A simple ā€œnoā€ would suffice.
[/quote]

LOL

893

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

So just to recap, you do NOT have a degree in genetics, correct?[/quote]

Never said I did. That is like saying you need a degree in ā€œanatomyā€. It is usually part of a larger degree unless specializing.[/quote]

[quote]gregron wrote:
A simple ā€œnoā€ would suffice.
[/quote]

LOL[/quote]

? I said I had an education in genetics. Never said I had a degree in genetics nor would one be needed to point out the problems being discussed here.

894

did you take algebra?
I have yet to see one example of someone who has shattered the 80 lb limit. Also, if someone has an example, please show how that person isnā€™t an anomaly. In this thread weā€™re looking to establish a rough range of what people can achieve naturally. This is an extremely important question to ask ourselves, as itā€™s central to all our individual decisions regarding staying natural/using PEDs, bulking up, etc. To simply go Bill Oā€™Reilly on us and say YOU CANā€™T EXPLAIN THAT!! is really not helping.

lol @ 300 level genetics in college and your peer reviewing process shooting down the study because Mr. America winners arenā€™t good enough bodybuilders. Weā€™re here to look at logic, not appeals to authority.
for the record I have done research in Epidemiology, which seems relevant to the threadā€¦

895

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

lol @ 300 level genetics in college and your peer reviewing process shooting down the study because Mr. America winners arenā€™t good enough bodybuilders. [/quote]

You seem confused. It has nothing to do with them being ā€œgood enough bodybuilderā€. It has everything to do with why that Mr. America winner represents what all men on the planet can do under the same stimulus.

896

Simply put, if the 80 lbs limit is breakable, there would be some examples. If there arenā€™t any examples and weā€™re just talking about theoretical la la land lifters, no one cares. Weā€™re looking to set a rough baseline for us to use in a practical manner.

897

X - youā€™ve suggested a range would be more appropriate to use. What range would you be comfortable with? And would you put an upper limit on it? I mean, if we agree that 500 pounds of muscle is not possible, weā€™d agree that the upper limit lies somewhere (and yes, I agree, itā€™s different for everyone). What would you be comfortable saying the limit was?

898

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Simply put, if the 80 lbs limit is breakable, there would be some examples. [/quote]

? After this many posts, if this post was written with a straight face it just shows writing more is pointless.

People believe what they want.

LOL at people acting like underwater weighing is necessary to discuss any resultsā€¦but accepting ā€œstudiesā€ where all they did was look at people and guess from pictures.

Please show me all of the underwater weighing of every competitor or even most over the last few decades.

899

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
X - youā€™ve suggested a range would be more appropriate to use. What range would you be comfortable with? And would you put an upper limit on it? I mean, if we agree that 500 pounds of muscle is not possible, weā€™d agree that the upper limit lies somewhere (and yes, I agree, itā€™s different for everyone). What would you be comfortable saying the limit was? [/quote]

First, I wouldnā€™t be looking at creating a range because I believe we donā€™t have enough data. Looking at only Mr. America winner leaves out huge sections of the human population. I would wait until we had a closer look at more cultures.

If I was simply trying to pull a number out of my ass, I would shoot for the highest possible range to allow for any outliers. I doubt most humans will gain 150lbs of muscle naturally.

Why would anyone set a limit so close to what people are actually doing and reaching as if there are no people with better genetics?

900

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:
Simply put, if the 80 lbs limit is breakable, there would be some examples. [/quote]

? After this many posts, if this post was written with a straight face it just shows writing more is pointless.

People believe what they want.

LOL at people acting like underwater weighing is necessary to discuss any resultsā€¦but accepting ā€œstudiesā€ where all they did was look at people and guess from pictures.

Please show me all of the underwater weighing of every competitor or even most over the last few decades.[/quote]
I didnā€™t read the entire thread. Anyways, you and anyone else (Brick I see you) throw out some rough numbers! Iā€™ve seen (I think it was bluecollartrain) ~200 lbs at 6 foot then +/- 3 lbs for every inch of height as a general range.