What is Lean Body Mass?

Training
261

[quote]gregron wrote:

Again, where is the proof? You always want scientific data/studies… Where are the studies saying this is the case?

We aren’t talking about someone 5’6 vs someone 6’5

Please stop being so purposefully dense.

Again, please show me proof that someone who is 5’10 with a more dense skeletal structure DOES (not could) carry more MUSCLE (not LBM) than someone who’s 5’10 but doesn’t have a dense skeletal structure.[/quote]

I didn’t write “does” and this isn’t just about dense skeletal structure as I mentioned wider hips and longer femurs not ideal to bodybuilding aesthetics…which means MORE AREA which means more muscle could potentially be built.

No one has to do a study to prove to you that more skeletal area can provide for more muscle mass. That is something most people with biology or medical backgrounds would agree on.

If you don’t, please explain your credentials that show your opinion has any professional merit.

262

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[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.[/quote]

You should have also asked X if he such a dick to people IRL.[/quote]

What do you think I’ve written that I would not say in real life?

In real life, none of this would take place. People don’t act like you in real life. In real life, you would pretty much be a stalker at this point.[/quote]

So you go around in real life saying things like this?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I hope what you just wrote doesn’t make sense to even you.[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Thank you for that. I have “doctor” in front of my name but there is always basic shit about biology that I missed.
[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am a DMD, the type who uses a scalpel and sutures on an almost daily basis.
[/quote]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Let me know if I need to repeat that again lest that basic message be lost again.
[/quote]

And you act like this in real life?

Reminds people constantly he’s a “doctor.”

Brags constantly about his education.

Asks people if they need him to repeat what he just wrote.

Asks people if he needs to write it out in crayon.

Asks people if English is their first language.

Constantly tries to convince everyone to accept the inflated image he has of himself.

Is constantly sarcastic and condescending.

263

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

And you act like this in real life?

Reminds people constantly he’s a “doctor.” [/quote]

LOL. I’m at work. I don’t have to remind people of that. The only reason it is mentioned here at all is when we are discussing things that I have a background in…like the parameters of Butt’s study.

[quote]

Brags constantly about his education.[/quote]

No bragging involved. Like above, it is mentioned because it is relevant to the discussion.

[quote]

Asks people if they need him to repeat what he just wrote.[/quote]

Why would I have to say that to someone if we are speaking?

[quote]

Asks people if he needs to write it out in crayon.[/quote]

LOL. I have never run across anyone in real life who acts like you do here.

You have followed me with this same list for about two years now.

In real life, we put people like that in institutions.

264

Who is lean body mass?

265

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

Again, where is the proof? You always want scientific data/studies… Where are the studies saying this is the case?

We aren’t talking about someone 5’6 vs someone 6’5

Please stop being so purposefully dense.

Again, please show me proof that someone who is 5’10 with a more dense skeletal structure DOES (not could) carry more MUSCLE (not LBM) than someone who’s 5’10 but doesn’t have a dense skeletal structure.[/quote]

I didn’t write “does” and this isn’t just about dense skeletal structure as I mentioned wider hips and longer femurs not ideal to bodybuilding aesthetics…which means MORE AREA which means more muscle could potentially be built.

No one has to do a study to prove to you that more skeletal area can provide for more muscle mass. That is something most people with biology or medical backgrounds would agree on.

If you don’t, please explain your credentials that show your opinion has any professional merit.[/quote]
So you’re agreeing with me that wider hips and a dense skeletal stricter doesn’t lead to more muscle gain.

You could have saved yourself a lot time typing all these long winded posts and just said “I agree with you.”

266

Thread recaps from 2006-2013.

Thread starts.

Professor X acts like a dick as per usual.

People are sick of it and argue back.

The secret 10 step plan to drive people crazy is unleashed by the DDS.

Classic Prof X “debating” tactics… He will:

  1. Ignore what was actually written.
  2. Question the reading comprehension of anyone who doesn’t agree with him.
  3. Go off on a rant while saying “some of you/many here/etc…” in order to avoid directly addressing anyone specific.
  4. Repeatedly quote the few who agree with him as proof that he is correct and say “good post” & “great points.”
  5. Possible talk about his guns some more and how he would say all this stuff to your face, reaffirming how tough he is IRL.
  6. Tell people to stop quoting Internet gurus and instead suggest that they start listening to “swole” NPC competitors who lift at their gym, eat McDonalds and play basketball all day.
  7. Talk about his free Vacation to Colorado.
  8. Call posters “son, kid and guy” in an attempt to patronize them.
  9. Tell people to listen to swole guys at the gym who look better than you do but ignores that advice when guys like Stu, Zraw, Austin, BlueCollarTrain, Waylander disagree with him.
  10. Tell people to “try harder” and that they’re “not very good at this.” Like people actually care.
  11. Repeat steps 1-10 but not in that order.
267

The point of this entire maximum muscle gain limits conversation is with regards to natural lifters.

X keeps claiming numbers that are beyond the proposed limits that have been discussed by Casey Butt as well as all of those other authors that I quoted in that long post.

X, are you an all natural lifter? If not then there is no point arguing against these numbers and using yourself as an example.

Are you claiming to be a natural non assisted lifter?

268

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
Who is lean body mass?[/quote]

She is who Brickhouse has stated divorces you after only 5 years of training.

269

Found an interesting article showing a positive correlation in both girls and boys between bone density and muscle cross-sectional area. Only one I was able to find after a quick search so I would take it with a grain of sand at the moment.

“Bone Mineral Content per Muscle Cross-Sectional Area as an Index of the Functional Muscle-Bone Unit”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.6.1095/full

270

[quote]gregron wrote:

So you’re agreeing with me that wider hips and a dense skeletal stricter doesn’t lead to more muscle gain.[/quote]

Someone’s training and diet is what leads to more muscle gains. No one said the skeleton alone leads to more muscle mass.

We are talking about potential…so yes, someone with more skeletal area can build more muscle.

Someone with more dense skeletal tissue could ptentially build more muscle over time just from carrying that structure around.

These are issues not even looked at by Casey Butt and are why his article is simply a list of measurements.

This is a discussion of genetics.

[quote]

You could have saved yourself a lot time typing all these long winded posts and just said “I agree with you.”[/quote]

LOL. That’s cute…but you are showing you still don’t grasp how much Casey Butt’s article avoided paying attention to.

271

[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
Found an interesting article showing a positive correlation in both girls and boys between bone density and muscle cross-sectional area. Only one I was able to find after a quick search so I would take it with a grain of sand at the moment.

“Bone Mineral Content per Muscle Cross-Sectional Area as an Index of the Functional Muscle-Bone Unit”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.6.1095/full[/quote]

In short, muscle mass has an effect on bone density.

It is believed that bone density also has an effect on muscle mass built over time.

272

[quote]gregron wrote:
The point of this entire maximum muscle gain limits conversation is with regards to natural lifters.

X keeps claiming numbers that are beyond the proposed limits that have been discussed by Casey Butt as well as all of those other authors that I quoted in that long post.[/quote]

This is not true as Butt himself has even written on this site that his readings may be off for those of African descent…therefore I am not writing anything beyond these proposed limits because he avoided looking at anyone like me.

273

I just don’t understand the point of this thread. I mean, let’s say that Brickhead and others gave up and agreed with X’s gross assumptions about the potential of African descendants in the context of muscle-building, as well as the possibility that denser skeletons could possibly lead to a slight increase in muscle. So what? I don’t quite grasp the agenda here. X seems to want to vehemently argue for these possibilities, but to what end? How does this information (almost entirely speculative) benefit any of us? Because, when you think about it, it changes nothing.

Let’s say it was all true (which I don’t personally believe). I’m still white, and nothing is going to change that. So, knowing that blacks may or may not be predisposed to possessing more LBM doesn’t matter to me one bit. Or, if I was black, it still wouldn’t matter. Just because an individual is black, or has a larger/denser skeleton doesn’t mean anything because there are so many other variables that factor into one’s potential as it pertains to bodybuilding. So what if a guy is black? That doesn’t mean he’ll have great insertions or muscle shape or, you know, calves.

Or, if a guy has a large skeleton it still doesn’t mean he has what it takes to pack on more muscle than others because he might be lacking in the other genetic departments. I guess what I’m saying is that it just seems too obvious that X is just using all of this to try and support his many ridiculous claims about how much muscle HE himself has built. Because, you know, he just so happens to possess the qualities that he’s discussing in this thread about “extreme development”/“largest muscles”/whatever, as per usual. Oh, and like one other poster said, X is NOT natural.

So, all of this is pointless, because he’s trying to argue against natural limits when he never even surpassed them himself. A non-natural lifter trying to argue with others about the limits of natural lifters. Hm, sounds about right.

274

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
The point of this entire maximum muscle gain limits conversation is with regards to natural lifters.

X keeps claiming numbers that are beyond the proposed limits that have been discussed by Casey Butt as well as all of those other authors that I quoted in that long post.[/quote]

This is not true as Butt himself has even written on this site that his readings may be off for those of African descent…therefore I am not writing anything beyond these proposed limits because he avoided looking at anyone like me.[/quote]

Anyone like you? Ha, meaning what? You speak as if you think you are some amazing exception, when you aren’t even natural and nobody sees you as you see yourself.

275

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:
I just don’t understand the point of this thread. [/quote]

Of course…you never do.

I actually started this thread to question Brick about his statement he wrote…that I only gained 35lbs of muscle since I started training.

I asked for his method.

He has still not given it.

That is what this thread was about. I wasn’t the one who posted Butt’s study here…Greg was…and he seems unaware of the actual info contained in it or the past discussions with the man when he was on the site.

I wasn’t aware I needed permission to question a member on their method of coming up with something like that.

Most people just use a calculator and some calipers.

It would also seem that very few people actually agree with him…so why the fuss about me asking?

276

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]FISCHER613 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.
[/quote]
I went ahead and highlited the portion that needs emphasis.

COULD lead to more muscle. There is absolute ZERO proof that it in fact does. You’re making assumptions based on the assumptions in that study (which was already pointed out)

COULD lead to more muscle =/= leads to more muscle.

COULD =/= DOES[/quote]

You are now arguing that someone with more skeletal length and mass can NOT carry more muscle?

This has to be “proven” to you?

Seriously?

Wait…let me get this straight…you really need someone to PROVE to you that someone with more skeletal area could carry more muscle mass???

Really?

If so…don’t worry about it…because you clearly aren’t aware of how this really makes you look.[/quote]

Wow he is trying to have a conversation with you and YOU are resorting to personal attacks as evidenced by that last line. You then wonder why people are not very nice to you.

Could: Used to express the possibility of not probability of. Big difference there.

[/quote]

LOL…after a whole thread of people fussing about what I “could” weigh in contest shape, you now take issue with “could”.

hypocrisy…good 'ole hypocrisy.

This would be more fun if this were more of a challenge…but the constant attempt at personal attacks just makes all of this look like grade school.[/quote]

Hypocrisy yes from you. I have no issue with you. I was pointing out that resorted to personally attacking him in a belittling way is all.

So me pointing out your own boorish behavior is an attack on you?

277

[quote]J. Prufrock wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
The point of this entire maximum muscle gain limits conversation is with regards to natural lifters.

X keeps claiming numbers that are beyond the proposed limits that have been discussed by Casey Butt as well as all of those other authors that I quoted in that long post.[/quote]

This is not true as Butt himself has even written on this site that his readings may be off for those of African descent…therefore I am not writing anything beyond these proposed limits because he avoided looking at anyone like me.[/quote]

Anyone like you? Ha, meaning what? You speak as if you think you are some amazing exception, when you aren’t even natural and nobody sees you as you see yourself.[/quote]

People of African descent is “people like me”.

Maybe you should try reading the thread.

It makes you look more informed when you do.

278

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

So you’re agreeing with me that wider hips and a dense skeletal stricter doesn’t lead to more muscle gain.[/quote]

Someone’s training and diet is what leads to more muscle gains. No one said the skeleton alone leads to more muscle mass.

We are talking about potential…so yes, someone with more skeletal area can build more muscle.

Someone with more dense skeletal tissue could ptentially build more muscle over time just from carrying that structure around.

These are issues not even looked at by Casey Butt and are why his article is simply a list of measurements.

This is a discussion of genetics.

[quote]

You could have saved yourself a lot time typing all these long winded posts and just said “I agree with you.”[/quote]

LOL. That’s cute…but you are showing you still don’t grasp how much Casey Butt’s article avoided paying attention to.[/quote]
Again, you are misinterpreting the word “MAY.”

Casey said this is calculations MAY (not does not) not fit for people of African decent. MAY not apply =/= does not apply.

May not apply to a very select few doesn’t mean that it does not apply to any or most. You understand this of course.

Can you name 1, just 1 natural bodybuilder who greatly (more than a couple of pounds) exceeds the numbers set forth by Casey Butt or the other authors whom I quoted?

Name just one natural who has demolished those numbers. If those numbers are so off base this should be a VERY easy task.

279

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:
Who is lean body mass?[/quote]

It’s the latest renamed PX thread that basically runs in circles hoping everyone on just this one forum give in to the possibility (fact?) that he personally is the exception to every unassisted lifter who has leaned out and made their statistics known either via competition, or some other publically verifiable method.

And while I’ve tried to just let things pass:

-I’m not an English teacher, that’s Shugert. One of many admins and mods who I’ve heard don’t really care for his presence on this site.

-I was pre-med in college, and having been reading journals and research papers via the NSCA CSCS monthly journal and a few others for years now, along with having completed two masters degrees, I think I’m more than capable of reading and drawing my own conclusions (whether they agree with anyone else’s or not).

-I assumed X was 5’10 because that’s the number that I’ve seen battered around by others in past threads. I personally don’t keep tabs on every delusional online persona I encounter.

-Yes, I’ve never seen the man in person, for some reason both times I’ve been out to Colorado, he was mysteriously kept separate form everyone else. In '09, I had my flight home changed so that AcTrain and myself would not see him in person. Odd.

-I never mentioned Casey Butts’ writing, and I don’t profess to have any advanced knowledge of human biology, but I can certainly assess my own thoughts based on a very thorough knowledge of past bodybuilders, and being around more present day competitors (not just the winners) and gym rats than I can ever count. This falls in line with Brick, who having been around the sport so long, makes his guesses known based on what he has studied and seen. It’s truly a sad affair when someone’s admitted guess can get another person’s ire up so quickly.

-The constant need in this thread to mention me repeatedly simply speaks to me that like many other past posters who have since left, the notion that other forum members give my opinion weight is bothersome. I’ve theorized in the past that this is the true reason why X never got along with guys who stand out and develop good reputations or followings on here.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; If X were truly the impressive and all knowing bodybuilding/human biology expert that he seems to feel he is, he would not only be on one web forum, constantly complaining about how he merely comes there to “discuss” training matters and that you can’t have a decent discussion here. You’d be on any other site “discussing” such intelligent subjects with more advanced folks who I imagine you would deem on your level. Of course when a ‘discussion’ is simply a false name used to hide a thread intended to scream “look at me! pay attention to me!”, I doubt much real discussing would take place.

Unfortunately, that’s never happened. He stays here complaining, even getting forced time-outs until he calls up crying about how the powers that be, who have let him run all over the site’s reputation, woke up and realized that it’s a pretty big community out there, and while every site will indeed have its haters, a specific poster is the one constant mentioned in every T Nation bashing thread on other sites. How does it feel? It’s not because people are jealous, or because they’re “trying to stop [him] from speaking the truth” or stopping the spread of “faulty science”.

While the article that a lot of people are talking about lately (by Steve Shaw) is a very well written piece, it does not really do much more than assemble the opinions of other people who have studied limits to a degree, and none have been able to find examples that exceed what Butts proposed. Does it make Casey 100% correct? Of course not, but it’s something to take into account. Until such a genetic freak blows apart what so many industry folks believe, it’s not a crime to buy into it. Maybe not 100% buy into it, but certainly something more most people to shoot for (as most people won’t even come close to what has been accomplished and documented).

And as an aside, Shaw is not only a very well educated and spoken individual, he’s an accomplished powerlifter who has been around the sport for his whole life. Just because someone doesn’t have a medical degree doesn’t mean that they are not qualified to speak on a topic. Calling him a Personal Trainer, and dismissing his view, while citing Thibs (who I respect the hell out of) to support your own opinions (funny how the video of CT and you discussing bf% disappeared, Lots of people on other sites have it though) just shows how ridiculous your arguments are.

Yes, I know X, write back, tell me to discuss what you said specifically, rattle off whatever BS you always do. It doesn’t matter.

This thread is pathetic, and I’m truly disappointed that such crap is allowed to go on here.

S

280

PX in a nutshell what is the real reason you make thread after thread about whether you gained more than 35 pounds of muscle or not? If you think you have then so what. If others think you haven’t then so what? I don’t for one moment believe this is about your altruistic tendency towards newbies and endeavouring to make sure they aren’t misinformed.

You have to let go and stop this all pervasive need you seem to have to convince everyone.

I would guess ALL here think you have done well in your goals.

I would also guess that MOST think you have overestimated what you have achieved regards muscle gain.

But in reality what does it matter? Stop this deep seated need to be all things to everyone because it looks like its taking over your life and, more importantly to me as I don’t know you and don’t much care for you, clogging up this site with utterly boring threads