# 80lb Lean Weight Gains?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:

shrug You can make estimates based on the stats of others. Accuracy of the estimates isn’t perfect but it’s not terrible and generally gives you an idea of what’s a likely size you could reach. (which is nearly always bigger than you are now) Whether or not you find the estimates valuable is up to you.[/quote]

All I’m saying is this magical number seems to be pretty silly in and of itself. This scenario seems plenty reasonable:
135 @ 20% = 27
225 @ 10% = 23
That’s 95 pounds of something other than fat. Call it LBM, LBM + other tissue, or whatever. It’s still over 80lbs of weight that is not fat. [/quote]

Yes, it’s counted as LBM.

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

1. As it was mentioned the goal was to look like Chris Kyle. I think the result is pretty darn good considering Cooper only had a few months to reach a level similar to what Kyle did in his lifetime

2. The “claim” was that he added 37lbs of “lean mass”. Not muscle. Understand that water and glycogen are part of “lean mass” … lean mass is also called “fat-free mass” which includes every tissue in the body except fat. But since his bones and organs aren’t likely to have grown, we can narrow it down to muscle, water and glycogen. [/quote][/quote]

I thought CT had written something along those lines, but I couldn’t remember which thread (probably for good reason…) [/quote]

Yeah. What gets confusing is when you weigh someone in a GLYCOGEN DEPLETED STATE or when someone is dried out for a contest and compare that to his starting point, which I presume is how these guys are getting their natural limits numbers.

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:

shrug You can make estimates based on the stats of others. Accuracy of the estimates isn’t perfect but it’s not terrible and generally gives you an idea of what’s a likely size you could reach. (which is nearly always bigger than you are now) Whether or not you find the estimates valuable is up to you.[/quote]

All I’m saying is this magical number seems to be pretty silly in and of itself. This scenario seems plenty reasonable:
135 @ 20% = 27
225 @ 10% = 23
That’s 95 pounds of something other than fat. Call it LBM, LBM + other tissue, or whatever. It’s still over 80lbs of weight that is not fat. [/quote]

Yes, it’s counted as LBM.

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

1. As it was mentioned the goal was to look like Chris Kyle. I think the result is pretty darn good considering Cooper only had a few months to reach a level similar to what Kyle did in his lifetime

2. The “claim” was that he added 37lbs of “lean mass”. Not muscle. Understand that water and glycogen are part of “lean mass” … lean mass is also called “fat-free mass” which includes every tissue in the body except fat. But since his bones and organs aren’t likely to have grown, we can narrow it down to muscle, water and glycogen. [/quote][/quote]

I thought CT had written something along those lines, but I couldn’t remember which thread (probably for good reason…) [/quote]

Yeah. What gets confusing is when you weigh someone in a GLYCOGEN DEPLETED STATE or when someone is dried out for a contest and compare that to his starting point, which I presume is how these guys are getting their natural limits numbers. [/quote]

I guess.

I’m sure there’s a natural limit, but I’m also sure it’s 100% dependent on about 50 independent factors unique to each individual. You might be able to come up with an average, but that’s all of about useless too.

[quote]This scenario seems plenty reasonable:
135 @ 20% = 27
225 @ 10% = 23
[/quote]

What are the starting height, ankle and wrist measurements for this hypothetical person?

Plenty of 135 pounder’s at 20%. Plenty.

[quote]blue9steel wrote:

[quote]This scenario seems plenty reasonable:
135 @ 20% = 27
225 @ 10% = 23
[/quote]

What are the starting height, ankle and wrist measurements for this hypothetical person?[/quote]

Why?

I went form 140lbs @ 5’6 in high school to being a leanish 220 a about a year ago. I did not do it naturally started using around 190lbs after about 6 years of training 4 of which were military so size was exactly the goal. Im sure some at like 6 foot plus could add it maybe natural maybe not not really sure why it matters or why I responded.

[quote]Reed wrote:
not really sure why it matters or why I responded.[/quote]

My feelings exactly.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:

[quote]This scenario seems plenty reasonable:
135 @ 20% = 27
225 @ 10% = 23
[/quote]

What are the starting height, ankle and wrist measurements for this hypothetical person?[/quote]

Why?[/quote]

Because without knowing the person’s frame size we can’t accurately estimate their potential growth. In general the taller you are and the bigger your frame then the bigger you can end up. Additionally, we need to know if the initial numbers make any sense. If we’re suggesting the guy is starting out at 135lbs, it makes a difference if he’s 5’3" or 6’8".

For example, Peter Dinklage (Tyrion Lannister from Game of Thrones), cool as he is, will never be 225lbs at 10% BF. His 4’5" height just won’t support that level of muscle mass. Using a single variable estimator based on past Mr. Olympias he would be about 125.8lbs in competition shape after about ten years of training, eating right and a small ocean of drugs. (assuming he also had excellent bodybuilding genetics) As a natural trainee, he’d be smaller than that.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not. [/quote]

yes you are suggesting these things you moron.

who in the fuck is 135lbs and 20% bf???

how tall is this person???

no they could not go from 135lbs 20% bf to 210lbs at 10%. your other examples are equally ignorant.

i REALLY dont want to get involved in a back and forth with you again, but 1. you are just such an idiot 2. you wont stop stalking my posts so it makes it difficult :([/quote]

You’ve gotta be one of the biggest cunts on the planet.

I wasn’t suggesting anything. I used this thing called a question mark. A question mark annotates a question.

Plenty of people are 135 @ 20%. None of the options are ignorant you’re just a closed minded little shit. No one is stalking your posts. I’ve direct posts at you in three threads. Get over yourself. [/quote]

no one is going from 135 @20% to 210 @10%

the fact that in your complete ignorance and idiocy you are so rude and aggressive just makes me shake my head

keep thinking you have a clue buddy

Is there actually any value to estimating one’s potential?

This is the wrong way to masturbate

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not. [/quote]

yes you are suggesting these things you moron.

who in the fuck is 135lbs and 20% bf???

how tall is this person???

no they could not go from 135lbs 20% bf to 210lbs at 10%. your other examples are equally ignorant.

i REALLY dont want to get involved in a back and forth with you again, but 1. you are just such an idiot 2. you wont stop stalking my posts so it makes it difficult :([/quote]

You’ve gotta be one of the biggest cunts on the planet.

I wasn’t suggesting anything. I used this thing called a question mark. A question mark annotates a question.

Plenty of people are 135 @ 20%. None of the options are ignorant you’re just a closed minded little shit. No one is stalking your posts. I’ve direct posts at you in three threads. Get over yourself. [/quote]

no one is going from 135 @20% to 210 @10%

[/quote]

Why? This seems really plausible. Very difficult, but plausible.

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not. [/quote]

yes you are suggesting these things you moron.

who in the fuck is 135lbs and 20% bf???

how tall is this person???

no they could not go from 135lbs 20% bf to 210lbs at 10%. your other examples are equally ignorant.

i REALLY dont want to get involved in a back and forth with you again, but 1. you are just such an idiot 2. you wont stop stalking my posts so it makes it difficult :([/quote]

You’ve gotta be one of the biggest cunts on the planet.

I wasn’t suggesting anything. I used this thing called a question mark. A question mark annotates a question.

Plenty of people are 135 @ 20%. None of the options are ignorant you’re just a closed minded little shit. No one is stalking your posts. I’ve direct posts at you in three threads. Get over yourself. [/quote]

no one is going from 135 @20% to 210 @10%

the fact that in your complete ignorance and idiocy you are so rude and aggressive just makes me shake my head

keep thinking you have a clue buddy
[/quote]
Sure they can.

You’re the asshole. Don’t play victim, It’s both sad and pathetic. Man up and apologize for being a douche in the Rousy thread and I’ll drop it.

[quote]Ripsaw3689 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not. [/quote]

yes you are suggesting these things you moron.

who in the fuck is 135lbs and 20% bf???

how tall is this person???

no they could not go from 135lbs 20% bf to 210lbs at 10%. your other examples are equally ignorant.

i REALLY dont want to get involved in a back and forth with you again, but 1. you are just such an idiot 2. you wont stop stalking my posts so it makes it difficult :([/quote]

You’ve gotta be one of the biggest cunts on the planet.

I wasn’t suggesting anything. I used this thing called a question mark. A question mark annotates a question.

Plenty of people are 135 @ 20%. None of the options are ignorant you’re just a closed minded little shit. No one is stalking your posts. I’ve direct posts at you in three threads. Get over yourself. [/quote]

no one is going from 135 @20% to 210 @10%

[/quote]

Why? This seems really plausible. Very difficult, but plausible. [/quote]

Because TheCB said so. That’s not enough for you???

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not. [/quote]

yes you are suggesting these things you moron.

who in the fuck is 135lbs and 20% bf???

how tall is this person???

no they could not go from 135lbs 20% bf to 210lbs at 10%. your other examples are equally ignorant.

i REALLY dont want to get involved in a back and forth with you again, but 1. you are just such an idiot 2. you wont stop stalking my posts so it makes it difficult :([/quote]

You’ve gotta be one of the biggest cunts on the planet.

I wasn’t suggesting anything. I used this thing called a question mark. A question mark annotates a question.

Plenty of people are 135 @ 20%. None of the options are ignorant you’re just a closed minded little shit. No one is stalking your posts. I’ve direct posts at you in three threads. Get over yourself. [/quote]

no one is going from 135 @20% to 210 @10%

the fact that in your complete ignorance and idiocy you are so rude and aggressive just makes me shake my head

keep thinking you have a clue buddy
[/quote]

You don’t even know the definition of lean mass according to the authors who gave you the idea of an arbitrary limit in the first place.

What’s best is the fact that you perceive yourself being in a position to qualify the muscular gains of someone with a 700lb deadlift in his early twenties as if you’re both on the same genetic level.

I really don’t care for how true these limits are but the arrogance of some of you fuckers is seriously astounding.

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Is there actually any value to estimating one’s potential?[/quote]
No. All it does is set the bar low and create a built in excuse for failure.

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not. [/quote]

yes you are suggesting these things you moron.

who in the fuck is 135lbs and 20% bf???

how tall is this person???

no they could not go from 135lbs 20% bf to 210lbs at 10%. your other examples are equally ignorant.

i REALLY dont want to get involved in a back and forth with you again, but 1. you are just such an idiot 2. you wont stop stalking my posts so it makes it difficult :([/quote]

You’ve gotta be one of the biggest cunts on the planet.

I wasn’t suggesting anything. I used this thing called a question mark. A question mark annotates a question.

Plenty of people are 135 @ 20%. None of the options are ignorant you’re just a closed minded little shit. No one is stalking your posts. I’ve direct posts at you in three threads. Get over yourself. [/quote]

no one is going from 135 @20% to 210 @10%

the fact that in your complete ignorance and idiocy you are so rude and aggressive just makes me shake my head

keep thinking you have a clue buddy
[/quote]

You don’t even know the definition of lean mass according to the authors who gave you the idea of an arbitrary limit in the first place.

What’s best is the fact that you perceive yourself being in a position to qualify the muscular gains of someone with a 700lb deadlift in his early twenties as if you’re both on the same genetic level.

I really don’t care for how true these limits are but the arrogance of some of you fuckers is seriously astounding.[/quote]

I’ve been posting on here for 7+ years and no one has come across as a bigger asshat than this guy with the exception of you know who.

[quote]blue9steel wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:

[quote]This scenario seems plenty reasonable:
135 @ 20% = 27
225 @ 10% = 23
[/quote]

What are the starting height, ankle and wrist measurements for this hypothetical person?[/quote]

Why?[/quote]

Because without knowing the person’s frame size we can’t accurately estimate their potential growth. In general the taller you are and the bigger your frame then the bigger you can end up. Additionally, we need to know if the initial numbers make any sense. If we’re suggesting the guy is starting out at 135lbs, it makes a difference if he’s 5’3" or 6’8".

For example, Peter Dinklage (Tyrion Lannister from Game of Thrones), cool as he is, will never be 225lbs at 10% BF. His 4’5" height just won’t support that level of muscle mass. Using a single variable estimator based on past Mr. Olympias he would be about 125.8lbs in competition shape after about ten years of training, eating right and a small ocean of drugs. (assuming he also had excellent bodybuilding genetics) As a natural trainee, he’d be smaller than that. [/quote]

I understand the height part, but why the other measurements?

I don’t understand why you’re using past Mr. O’s as you estimator? Is that how you’re estimating potential growth?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not. [/quote]

yes you are suggesting these things you moron.

who in the fuck is 135lbs and 20% bf???

how tall is this person???

no they could not go from 135lbs 20% bf to 210lbs at 10%. your other examples are equally ignorant.

i REALLY dont want to get involved in a back and forth with you again, but 1. you are just such an idiot 2. you wont stop stalking my posts so it makes it difficult :([/quote]

You’ve gotta be one of the biggest cunts on the planet.

I wasn’t suggesting anything. I used this thing called a question mark. A question mark annotates a question.

Plenty of people are 135 @ 20%. None of the options are ignorant you’re just a closed minded little shit. No one is stalking your posts. I’ve direct posts at you in three threads. Get over yourself. [/quote]

no one is going from 135 @20% to 210 @10%

the fact that in your complete ignorance and idiocy you are so rude and aggressive just makes me shake my head

keep thinking you have a clue buddy
[/quote]

You don’t even know the definition of lean mass according to the authors who gave you the idea of an arbitrary limit in the first place.

What’s best is the fact that you perceive yourself being in a position to qualify the muscular gains of someone with a 700lb deadlift in his early twenties as if you’re both on the same genetic level.

I really don’t care for how true these limits are but the arrogance of some of you fuckers is seriously astounding.[/quote]

I’ve been posting on here for 7+ years and no one has come across as a bigger asshat than this guy with the exception of you know who. [/quote]

omfg

1. unless cparker is a genetic marvel the likes of which humanity has never before seen he has not gone from 200 to 275 as a natural with those 75 being “lean gains” neither is he now “decently lean” at 275 as a natural (by any reasonable definition).

honestly, again, how can this even be argued???

1. no one is going from a starting point of adult male of average height as a natural starting from 135 at 20% bf to 210 at 10%.

people disagreeing with points 1 or 2 are either trolling or genuinely ignorant as to what these numbers mean in real life as opposed to some ridiculous theoretical online bs argument.

i train with a guy 5’10 210 10% who is a fucking tank and immensely strong (520 bench, 650 squat, 680 dead).

he has exceptional genetics for muscle. do you think such a person is REALLY (in the real world not in some ridiculous online scenario) going to be 135 at 20% bf prior to training as an adult??? no he’s naturally going to be quite built and pretty lean before even starting any training at all.

an actual 210 10% physique is fucking immense! jesus you are acting like it is no big deal at all.

seriously, rather than argue for the sake of it, think through what you are saying first.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]blue9steel wrote:
Wait, so you’re suggesting a guy could start at 135lbs and become 300lbs while staying at 20% bf naturally? You realize that at that size he’d be bigger than someone like Jay Cutler right?[/quote]

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking, why aren’t these scenarios possible. That’s the most outlandish one. I have no idea if that would make him larger than Cutler or not. [/quote]

yes you are suggesting these things you moron.

who in the fuck is 135lbs and 20% bf???

how tall is this person???

no they could not go from 135lbs 20% bf to 210lbs at 10%. your other examples are equally ignorant.

i REALLY dont want to get involved in a back and forth with you again, but 1. you are just such an idiot 2. you wont stop stalking my posts so it makes it difficult :([/quote]

You’ve gotta be one of the biggest cunts on the planet.

I wasn’t suggesting anything. I used this thing called a question mark. A question mark annotates a question.

Plenty of people are 135 @ 20%. None of the options are ignorant you’re just a closed minded little shit. No one is stalking your posts. I’ve direct posts at you in three threads. Get over yourself. [/quote]

no one is going from 135 @20% to 210 @10%

the fact that in your complete ignorance and idiocy you are so rude and aggressive just makes me shake my head

keep thinking you have a clue buddy
[/quote]

You don’t even know the definition of lean mass according to the authors who gave you the idea of an arbitrary limit in the first place.

What’s best is the fact that you perceive yourself being in a position to qualify the muscular gains of someone with a 700lb deadlift in his early twenties as if you’re both on the same genetic level.

I really don’t care for how true these limits are but the arrogance of some of you fuckers is seriously astounding.[/quote]

I’ve been posting on here for 7+ years and no one has come across as a bigger asshat than this guy with the exception of you know who. [/quote]

Lol. We have a difference in opinion regarding “you know who”.

But this guy was probably one of those idiots who did nothing but constantly troll him under a different account at that time.