The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Bigger Stronger Leaner
 
Changing of the Guard
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

ryanbCXG wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ryanbCXG wrote:


Yes you do need to be at compareable bf.


You don't seem to follow. Then why not claim someone needs to reach the same AMOUNT of body fat?

You are making things up now. The heavier you get, the less your "percentage" will match up witjh what it was when you were lighter.

Dieting down to where you were previously will NOT bring you back to where you were in terms of body fat.

That has been explained about 100 times now.


No it's not the amount of weight you carry that makes bf testing less reliable its the total bf % no matter anything else. The fact you got measured at 18 is insane no one can accurately measure bf that high. Way to many variables.



I got measured at 18 years of age....and are you saying that non one can get an accurate reading at 18%?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

bpick86 wrote:
Mad Martigan wrote:
bpick86 wrote:

He does disagree. I think I have discussed this with him personally three separate times. And it has been discussed before that more times than I even care to count. As SmashingWeights said I think we are trying to put our heads through a concrete wall.


Honestly, that's fine by me. It is difficult to prove our point with absolute certainty, and PX is definitely entitled to his opinion.

What bothers me is his casual dismissal of basic logic and science, particularly for a professional in the medical field. Means are not useless because of confounding variables. That is what statistical analysis is for.


I have said several times that there is not 100% accurate method. And by X's definition of gaining LBM he very well could have gained that 80lbs. However, in relation to the argument over Bricks limit, that 80lbs is inaccurate because his methodology for coming to his 80lb number is incorrect for that argument.



LOL.

There is only one method for learning how much lean body mass you have gained....by taking body fat percentages at the start and finish and calulcating lean body mass from that.

That is it.

There is no other "methodology".

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Smashingweights
Level

Join date: Apr 2013
Location:
Posts: 1650

ryanbCXG wrote:
Smashingweights wrote:
bpick86 wrote:
Smashingweights wrote:
Smashingweights wrote:
I understand that the body is 70% water professor but what I was getting, as has been used as an example several times is the gallon of water thing.
Example:
You are 250 pounds with 15% bodyfat correct?
Subtract the fat weight of roughly 38 pounds and you are left with a very respectable amount of 212 pounds LBM.
Go chug a gallon of water really quick.
Viola!
You now have 220 pounds of LBM.
See how water weight drastically skews LBM?

Make sense?


The guy in your example would still be roughly 15% bf though. If you add 8 lbs of LBM through water weight, you also add 8 lbs to total body weight. So it goes 212/250=.85=220/258. Not trying to bust your balls just pointing out something you might not have considered.


Oh I understand this.
I am just trying to show how water weight/bloat contributes to LBM "gained" but isn't included in this 40-50 pounds scale gain thing.
Does this make sense?


This is the truth. Recently I have put on 25 lbs no Increae in caliper and unlike x I actually do have a full 6 pack so skins pinching is a bit more accurate. The point is I am not dellusion and think this is actually muscle since my skin folds didn't go up. It's glycogen and water. Amazing what that can do

Putting on 25 pounds with no increase in caliper readings, assuming the reader is competent, would mean you gained some muscle.
Obviously not 25 pounds worth but definitely some muscle gain as well as water and glycogen.
Way to go.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bpick86
Level

Join date: Feb 2013
Location: Mississippi, USA
Posts: 708

Professor X wrote:
bpick86 wrote:
Mad Martigan wrote:
bpick86 wrote:

He does disagree. I think I have discussed this with him personally three separate times. And it has been discussed before that more times than I even care to count. As SmashingWeights said I think we are trying to put our heads through a concrete wall.


Honestly, that's fine by me. It is difficult to prove our point with absolute certainty, and PX is definitely entitled to his opinion.

What bothers me is his casual dismissal of basic logic and science, particularly for a professional in the medical field. Means are not useless because of confounding variables. That is what statistical analysis is for.


I have said several times that there is not 100% accurate method. And by X's definition of gaining LBM he very well could have gained that 80lbs. However, in relation to the argument over Bricks limit, that 80lbs is inaccurate because his methodology for coming to his 80lb number is incorrect for that argument.



LOL.

There is only one method for learning how much lean body mass you have gained....by taking body fat percentages at the start and finish and calulcating lean body mass from that.

That is it.

There is no other "methodology".


You have to have a starting point. Again I choose to have more faith in you than to believe that you do not grasp this concept. I think you are being purposely dense for the sake of your argument. The starting point is the disagreement. We are not talking about how much you grew. We are talking about figuring out how much LBM you earned through time in the gym by taking the total amount of LBM you have and subtracting what you would have had you never touched a weight. We have already presented a couple ways to do that for the sake of comparison so I will not restate them.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Mad Martigan
Level

Join date: Apr 2013
Location:
Posts: 190

bpick86 wrote:
Mad Martigan wrote:
bpick86 wrote:

He does disagree. I think I have discussed this with him personally three separate times. And it has been discussed before that more times than I even care to count. As SmashingWeights said I think we are trying to put our heads through a concrete wall.


Honestly, that's fine by me. It is difficult to prove our point with absolute certainty, and PX is definitely entitled to his opinion.

What bothers me is his casual dismissal of basic logic and science, particularly for a professional in the medical field. Means are not useless because of confounding variables. That is what statistical analysis is for.


I have said several times that there is not 100% accurate method. And by X's definition of gaining LBM he very well could have gained that 80lbs. However, in relation to the argument over Bricks limit, that 80lbs is inaccurate because his methodology for coming to his 80lb number is incorrect for that argument.


I don't disagree. I'm not sure if you think I'm arguing with you, but I want to make it clear to you that I'm not.

I have said my piece on the LBM gains issue, there is little to be said or gained from continuing the discussion. All I meant to convey is that PX's comment about averages was dead wrong. And you know, I don't want to be a prick or anything, but when people are wrong, someone should say so.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ryanbCXG
Level 5

Join date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 5283

Smashingweights wrote:
ryanbCXG wrote:
Smashingweights wrote:
bpick86 wrote:
Smashingweights wrote:
Smashingweights wrote:
I understand that the body is 70% water professor but what I was getting, as has been used as an example several times is the gallon of water thing.
Example:
You are 250 pounds with 15% bodyfat correct?
Subtract the fat weight of roughly 38 pounds and you are left with a very respectable amount of 212 pounds LBM.
Go chug a gallon of water really quick.
Viola!
You now have 220 pounds of LBM.
See how water weight drastically skews LBM?

Make sense?


The guy in your example would still be roughly 15% bf though. If you add 8 lbs of LBM through water weight, you also add 8 lbs to total body weight. So it goes 212/250=.85=220/258. Not trying to bust your balls just pointing out something you might not have considered.


Oh I understand this.
I am just trying to show how water weight/bloat contributes to LBM "gained" but isn't included in this 40-50 pounds scale gain thing.
Does this make sense?


This is the truth. Recently I have put on 25 lbs no Increae in caliper and unlike x I actually do have a full 6 pack so skins pinching is a bit more accurate. The point is I am not dellusion and think this is actually muscle since my skin folds didn't go up. It's glycogen and water. Amazing what that can do

Putting on 25 pounds with no increase in caliper readings, assuming the reader is competent, would mean you gained some muscle.
Obviously not 25 pounds worth but definitely some muscle gain as well as water and glycogen.
Way to go.


Certainly some muscle. But I was very dry and depleted. Basically an extreme example of your point

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bpick86
Level

Join date: Feb 2013
Location: Mississippi, USA
Posts: 708

Mad Martigan wrote:
bpick86 wrote:
Mad Martigan wrote:
bpick86 wrote:

He does disagree. I think I have discussed this with him personally three separate times. And it has been discussed before that more times than I even care to count. As SmashingWeights said I think we are trying to put our heads through a concrete wall.


Honestly, that's fine by me. It is difficult to prove our point with absolute certainty, and PX is definitely entitled to his opinion.

What bothers me is his casual dismissal of basic logic and science, particularly for a professional in the medical field. Means are not useless because of confounding variables. That is what statistical analysis is for.


I have said several times that there is not 100% accurate method. And by X's definition of gaining LBM he very well could have gained that 80lbs. However, in relation to the argument over Bricks limit, that 80lbs is inaccurate because his methodology for coming to his 80lb number is incorrect for that argument.


I don't disagree. I'm not sure if you think I'm arguing with you, but I want to make it clear to you that I'm not.

I have said my piece on the LBM gains issue, there is little to be said or gained from continuing the discussion. All I meant to convey is that PX's comment about averages was dead wrong. And you know, I don't want to be a prick or anything, but when people are wrong, someone should say so.


Yeah, after I typed that I actually did realize that I directed a comment for X towards your post because your post made me think about it again. I was agreeing with you basically by restating what you said. I am pretty sure we are on the same page.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Smashingweights
Level

Join date: Apr 2013
Location:
Posts: 1650

ryanbCXG wrote:
Smashingweights wrote:
ryanbCXG wrote:
Smashingweights wrote:
bpick86 wrote:
Smashingweights wrote:
Smashingweights wrote:
I understand that the body is 70% water professor but what I was getting, as has been used as an example several times is the gallon of water thing.
Example:
You are 250 pounds with 15% bodyfat correct?
Subtract the fat weight of roughly 38 pounds and you are left with a very respectable amount of 212 pounds LBM.
Go chug a gallon of water really quick.
Viola!
You now have 220 pounds of LBM.
See how water weight drastically skews LBM?

Make sense?


The guy in your example would still be roughly 15% bf though. If you add 8 lbs of LBM through water weight, you also add 8 lbs to total body weight. So it goes 212/250=.85=220/258. Not trying to bust your balls just pointing out something you might not have considered.


Oh I understand this.
I am just trying to show how water weight/bloat contributes to LBM "gained" but isn't included in this 40-50 pounds scale gain thing.
Does this make sense?


This is the truth. Recently I have put on 25 lbs no Increae in caliper and unlike x I actually do have a full 6 pack so skins pinching is a bit more accurate. The point is I am not dellusion and think this is actually muscle since my skin folds didn't go up. It's glycogen and water. Amazing what that can do

Putting on 25 pounds with no increase in caliper readings, assuming the reader is competent, would mean you gained some muscle.
Obviously not 25 pounds worth but definitely some muscle gain as well as water and glycogen.
Way to go.


Certainly some muscle. But I was very dry and depleted. Basically an extreme example of your point

Oh ok.
Congrats on the progress.
Keep it up!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

bwilliamsr89
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2010
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 173

From earlier:

"That's why I got a caliper reading so there would be no guess work"
- Px

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report