What is Lean Body Mass?

Training
221

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I personally don’t care about spme exact wannabe number. [/quote]

You obviously do ya spaz, hence why you are getting so bent out of shape with realistic BF% estimation and the elusive 35lbs of muscle BrickHead suggested lol.[/quote]

Aaaah…so because I am pointing out what several people here have written they disagree with…that means I am trying to come up with some exact wannabe number?

Look, Brick is flat out wrong and misinformed if he thinks like he does. People like you do not want me challenging guys like that…or else you would simply shut up.

[/quote]

I highly doubt they care if some guy doesn’t agree with what I say and asks me how I came to a conclusion. If I recall correctly, some just said they think I’m wrong in a polite manner.

222

CT thought PX was 6 feet even, that’s why he said 216 I believe, subtract a few lbs from that estimate and it’s reasonable.

Knee-gro is Headhunter I think. It’s certainly not the guy in the avatar.

223

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]browndisaster wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
How much do you think you would weigh shredded?

If its not 240 (seems like you do not agree with that assessment) then what do you think?

Why do you keep asking other people why Brick thinks you’ve only gained 35 pounds of training induced muscle? [/quote]
corrected myself to 225

250 lbs at 16% bf would mean he’d be greater than 220 lbs in contest shape
30 inch quads and 18 inch arms would mean he could compete against Platz

The biggest lie of all is calling me not funny. I’m so funny that I leave people gasping for breath, and strangers will stop to tell me I’m hilarious, even though they weren’t included in the conversation. No offense, bitch…but maybe spend more time on your jokes Proffyboo. [/quote]

You are a funny guy dude, but you aint got nothing on Proffyboo (love the name).

His lunge video is comedy gold.[/quote]

All the kids are doing The Lunge now. It’s the latest dance move from Proffyboo.[/quote]

Don’t know how a grown man who professes to big and strong can actually be weak and sloppy. I’d be embarrassed to show my ass like that.

224

I’m sure he wants to stay faaaaaaaar away from this thread but it would be pretty cool if CT would chime in.

I would love to hear his thoughts on the articles I re-posted on the other page as well as the 216 pound stage weight thing.

225

I have no clue if he is Headhunter or whoever the fuck that is, but the guy in Knee-Gro’s profile picture is a Portuguese-speaking bodybuilder who even tried to get into the local MMA circuits there. I know because I worked with him for one of his amateur shows.

Google and you’ll find enough pictures, a blogspot and youtube videos enough to create an entire profile on TNation lol

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
CT thought PX was 6 feet even, that’s why he said 216 I believe, subtract a few lbs from that estimate and it’s reasonable.

Knee-gro is Headhunter I think. It’s certainly not the guy in the avatar.[/quote]

226

I’m pretty confident I can nip this thread in the bud, here goes:
? anything brickhead says is wrong
? black people are superior to white people in every way
? professor x you are hyooooge

227

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I personally don’t care about spme exact wannabe number. [/quote]

You obviously do ya spaz, hence why you are getting so bent out of shape with realistic BF% estimation and the elusive 35lbs of muscle BrickHead suggested lol.[/quote]

Aaaah…so because I am pointing out what several people here have written they disagree with…that means I am trying to come up with some exact wannabe number?

Look, Brick is flat out wrong and misinformed if he thinks like he does. People like you do not want me challenging guys like that…or else you would simply shut up.

[/quote]

Where the fuck do you come up with this garbage? You are genuinely the new Rogue Vampire, yet instead of being fascinated by you, like I was with him, I just pity you.

When did I say you were trying to come up with a number? I said you obviously care and yet you spew your usual irrelevant bullshit.

Thanks for proving my earlier point regarding your inability to think or argue coherently sweetness :).

228

I’m convinced prof x is the most elaborate troll to ever grace the Internet.

These stupid threads are the exact reason I (and many others I believe) rarely post here anymore.

Don’t feed the troll.

229

250 at 16% would mean 210 at 0% and over 220 around 5%

Obviously he didn’t quote that part of my post when saying “more bullshit and lies”

ball don’t lie

230

I think a lot of this argument can go away by stating the fact that caliper bodyfat measurements are worse at predicting bodyfat than the eye, IMHO.

When I began my fat loss in January this year, my caliper measurements (7-site) had me at 16% bf at 188.8lbs, which would have had me at 159lbs of LeanMass. I knew that was wrong and later I was proved that.

Over 6 months I lost 29lbs (and I stress 6 months b/c thats a long time to slowly drop 29lbs) and I still could not see my abs and measured in at 13% bf. I’ll contend it’s very well possible I lost some muscle, but I won’t contend I lost 20lbs of it, especially given I have been working with high end coaches. I’m sure these types of measurement errors are expounded at higher bodyfat percentages.

I find it funny everyone wants to argue the legitimacy of natural limits by using their supposed lean mass as support , which was determined by a seriously faulty and inaccurate caculation in the first place.

GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

231

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
CT thought PX was 6 feet even, that’s why he said 216 I believe, subtract a few lbs from that estimate and it’s reasonable.

Knee-gro is Headhunter I think. It’s certainly not the guy in the avatar.[/quote]

I’m about 6 feet in shoes…but yeah, there is a huge height difference between me and him.

Either way, yes, that is headhunter…which means the trolls in this thread are getting trolled and don’t realize it.

Either way, arguing about some arbitrary number makes no sense unless someone makes an extremely wrong statement.

It doesn’t matter if in alternate world I dieted down to “215” or “200”.

All I argued is that acting like no gains have been made for the last several years makes no sense which is the only way you could think I would need to drop below 180 regardless.

232

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

  1. Natural bodybuilding contests are not won based on who carries the most muscle mass or lean body mass.

  2. Wider hip structures are not considered ideal in bodybuilding even though those body types could carry more muscle and also have more lean body mass.[/quote]

True, if we’re going by any method to judge the limits of an unassisted yet aesthetically complete bodybuilder, but I don’t think anyone is. While I can only speak for my own experiences, I have never in my life known of a bodybuilder, competitive or not, who hasn’t been steadfast in his or her constant pursuit to build the maximum amount of muscle possible.[/quote]

That doesn’t mean anything. Bottom line, YOU DO NOT WIN NAT BB CONTESTS BASED ON WHO HAS THE MOST MUSCLE.

That means, yes, people who may not win could have had more muscle on them. To ignore that is NOT science.[/quote]

WTF.

No X, you are IN NO POSITION WHATSOEVER to casually dismiss Stu’s expertise on this topic.

[quote]Prof:

[quote]Stu wrote:
I daresay it’d be kind of silly to even presume that someone would be in the situation of intentionally not doing so. This would apply even moreso IMO in the case of unassisted individuals, who can’t afford to risk any leg up to a fellow competitor or gym rat.[/quote]

Uhm, spending more time dieting and competing alone could hold back gains.[/quote]

Uhm, they’ve chosen to be competing bodybuilders IN THE PRESENT and not at some theoretically, fully-maximized future date.

Besides, it’s not like that latter group is providing much, if any, meaningful data for the discussion.

edit - ok, this bottom part got misquoted but easy to know what both Stu & X wrote. ok, fixed it[/quote]

That was either hilarious…or just sad.

Stu is an English teacher. Yes, I have more credentials than he does to discuss a biological study with these parameters.

The things are listed are very valid reasons why Casey Butt’s “article” is nothing more than a list of measurements.

If you want to discuss the science, do so…but acting like I need to be in sopme special “position” to question what Stu writes is all kinds of wrong.

I can see though why some of you don’t want anyone questioning what you write.

It is way easier to spread bullshit when no one does.

Ignoring that
1- nat bb comps are never won just based on who has the most muscle

and
2- the skeletal structure that allows the most lean body mass would NOT be ideal for bodybuilding (ie. wide hips, long femurs, dense structure)

isn’t real science.

Yes, keep arguing about me instead of the topic.

Those reasons alone are why Butt’s article fails…but there are many more.

233

How do you guys know Knee-Grow is headhunter?

Don’t the mods put a stop to alternate accounts pretty quickly? I know he isn’t the guy in his avatar but is the HH connection just a hunch like people did with CT Rock/DN/SickSex6?

234

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ignoring that
1- nat bb comps are never won just based on who has the most muscle

and
2- the skeletal structure that allows the most lean body mass would NOT be ideal for bodybuilding (ie. wide hips, long femurs, dense structure)
[/quote]
That structure POTENTIALLY allows more LBM… BUT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN MOAR MUSCLEEEEE. LBM =/= MUSCLE.

Someone with wider hips, longer femurs and bones that very dense is obviously going to weigh more than someone without those characteristics. Their friggin bone structure weighs more. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with more muscle.

This is a point you conveniently seem to leave out.

Again, LBM does not equal MUSCLE. I thought the point of this thread was muscle gain? Go chug a gallon of water. BAM! 8 pounds of LBM gains in less than 5 minutes. Crazy natty gainz brah

235

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:
CT thought PX was 6 feet even, that’s why he said 216 I believe, subtract a few lbs from that estimate and it’s reasonable.

Knee-gro is Headhunter I think. It’s certainly not the guy in the avatar.[/quote]

I’m about 6 feet in shoes…but yeah, there is a huge height difference between me and him.

Either way, yes, that is headhunter…which means the trolls in this thread are getting trolled and don’t realize it.

Either way, arguing about some arbitrary number makes no sense unless someone makes an extremely wrong statement.

It doesn’t matter if in alternate world I dieted down to “215” or “200”.

All I argued is that acting like no gains have been made for the last several years makes no sense which is the only way you could think I would need to drop below 180 regardless.[/quote]

X, since your Indigo Project appearance, how much have you progressed? Have you gained 30lbs of muscle(just a ramdom #). Did you take CT’s exercises and start using them on your own? Are you in better condition? Can you now do a lunge? (just f’n with ya) I am just wondering in what ways and how much you have progressed since that appearance?

236

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Quick Ben wrote:

Knee-gro is Headhunter I think. It’s certainly not the guy in the avatar.[/quote]

Either way, yes, that is headhunter…which means the trolls in this thread are getting trolled and don’t realize it.[/quote]

I’m sure any mod could tell you I’m not headhunter, and I certainly wouldn’t oppose in case you (or anyone else) want to ask them. This is the only username I ever had here and I don’t even know who the hell is headhunter.

You handle the truth about as good as you perform a lunge. If I were you I’d make sure I had a clue before going around accusing people of being someone else’s alternym.

237

Jesus…

X, do people shit on you this much IRL?

238

[quote]Professor X wrote:
That was either hilarious…or just sad.

Stu is an English teacher. Yes, I have more credentials than he does to discuss a biological study with these parameters.

The things are listed are very valid reasons why Casey Butt’s “article” is nothing more than a list of measurements.

If you want to discuss the science, do so…but acting like I need to be in sopme special “position” to question what Stu writes is all kinds of wrong.

I can see though why some of you don’t want anyone questioning what you write.

It is way easier to spread bullshit when no one does.

Ignoring that
1- nat bb comps are never won just based on who has the most muscle

and
2- the skeletal structure that allows the most lean body mass would NOT be ideal for bodybuilding (ie. wide hips, long femurs, dense structure)

isn’t real science.

Yes, keep arguing about me instead of the topic.

Those reasons alone are why Butt’s article fails…but there are many more.[/quote]

First off, the inclusion of Stu had everything to do with exposure to natural BB’s and the amounts of “lean mass” they typically carry (ie. his empirical expertise), and literally nothing to do with scientific theory. Try and keep up.

Yes, I understand your criticisms of Butt’s method and conclusions. But here’s the thing u seem to miss: it was still worthy of being pubished! Of course there’s always room for critical analysis and down-the-road modifications in light of that, this is how science progresses. (note how are back to the context of SCIENCE)

But you seem to think that dismissive derision of a particular study imposes a dead-end on that particular line of inquiry. Again, that is not how SCIENCE proceeds and it also completely misses Butt’s contribution for what it was: a good starting-point that (likely) utilized the only available data at the time.

(And while it’s nice of you to draw attention to aspects that are worthy of criticism, believe it or not graduate-level students over a range of disciplines (not just SCIENCE, mind you) also do this everyday)

239

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Ignoring that
1- nat bb comps are never won just based on who has the most muscle

and
2- the skeletal structure that allows the most lean body mass would NOT be ideal for bodybuilding (ie. wide hips, long femurs, dense structure)
[/quote]
That structure POTENTIALLY allows more LBM… BUT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN MOAR MUSCLEEEEE. LBM =/= MUSCLE.

Someone with wider hips, longer femurs and bones that very dense is obviously going to weigh more than someone without those characteristics. Their friggin bone structure weighs more. That has absolutely NOTHING to do with more muscle.

This is a point you conveniently seem to leave out.[/quote]

It is actually a point the study I posted first already went into…about how that could lead to more muscle being built over a life time as opposed to someone who carried less dense muscle structure.

I didn’t ignore it, I addressed it directly. That still doesn’t change the fact that this is not ideal for bb which means they would not be looked at.

Like I said, get to me when you want to actually discuss the science. Yes, you skeletal structure helps determine how much muscle it can build.

240

[quote]csulli wrote:
Jesus…

X, do people shit on you this much IRL?[/quote]

Never. This is the strangest bandwagon bullshit I have ever seen.

They aren’t even bothering to argue any topics…just throwing insults at me.