|
Post by jonathan on May 18, 2005 9:08:59 GMT -5
Oops, used the wrong term. It's not brown fat, it's essential fat.
|
|
irx
Fitness Noob
Posts: 230
|
Post by irx on May 18, 2005 9:27:04 GMT -5
i don't agree with the name calling, but jonathon boey is obviously wrong. DEAD WRONG. who said lower BF% has always to do with losing fat?? I think you're parroting too much from other sites that you forget to apply some common sense. A little maths will show you why you're wrong. 200lb @ 5% BF - 190lb lean mass, 10lb fat mass after bulking up, assuming fat stays constant at 10lb. That includes your ''brown fat too'' 250lb @ 4% BF - 240lb lean mass, 10lb fat mass. BF drops without fat mass dropping. tra-lalala. case close. jonathon wrong ocelot wins. So are you telling me if I have 30% bodyfat now, I can reduce it according to percentage to say 10% by increasing my muscle mass ? Sure, that's one way to play with percentages, but the fact still remains I've got a whole lot of fat. Percentages, like statistics, don't tell the whole story. I don't know where you cooked up your theory from pal, it doesn't work that way. Fat loss is always active reduction of fat, not active increase of other things to mask the amount of fat. Case closed, you're logic is flawed. Hope you're not one of those people who mask their fatness by increasing muscle size and then walk around thinking they're so big and strong. YES, you can reduce you bodyfat% from 30% to 10% by increasing just muscle mass. It works like that, whether you like it or not. the issue never involved how much fat you're carrying, but how low the bodyfat percentage of humans can go, which you are totally wrong about. what i am saying is, you're wrong if you think it is impossible to get under 5% fat. i simply put on a case to show you how WRONG you are. And my 'theory' isn't cooked up, anybody with simple mathematical knowledge can tell you that. the issue now isn't with the amount of fat the person is holding on to now. the issue now is that your ignorant preception that it is impossible to have less than 5% bodyfat[/b] that is the issue that you're not backing up with your repliesNOBODY said anything about losing essential body fat. BF% is like you said, playing around with percentages. and since when were we çoncerned with the whole story? this was nevier a concern from the start, just something that you added in to trying to make things more complicated then they are. i say this the third time, the issue now is your error in which you thnk it is impossible to get below 5% bodyfat%. and we also never really talked about fat loss, but Bf % loss. so, the bottom line is you're wrong when you said you cannot go less than 5% bodyfat. it is merely a percentage of your TOTAL weight, so it's very much possible. My 'theory'' is not cooked up, i say again. just because you're wrong doesn't mean you have to run around in circles and not address the issue. you have to admit your errors. instead of admitting to your error, you added in useless stuff and put words in my mouth to try and mask your ignorance. even mods are not right everytime.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on May 18, 2005 11:19:54 GMT -5
So are you telling me if I have 30% bodyfat now, I can reduce it according to percentage to say 10% by increasing my muscle mass ? Sure, that's one way to play with percentages, but the fact still remains I've got a whole lot of fat. Percentages, like statistics, don't tell the whole story. I don't know where you cooked up your theory from pal, it doesn't work that way. Fat loss is always active reduction of fat, not active increase of other things to mask the amount of fat. Case closed, you're logic is flawed. Hope you're not one of those people who mask their fatness by increasing muscle size and then walk around thinking they're so big and strong. YES, you can reduce you bodyfat% from 30% to 10% by increasing just muscle mass. It works like that, whether you like it or not. the issue never involved how much fat you're carrying, but how low the bodyfat percentage of humans can go, which you are totally wrong about. what i am saying is, you're wrong if you think it is impossible to get under 5% fat. i simply put on a case to show you how WRONG you are. And my 'theory' isn't cooked up, anybody with simple mathematical knowledge can tell you that. the issue now isn't with the amount of fat the person is holding on to now. the issue now is that your ignorant preception that it is impossible to have less than 5% bodyfat[/b] that is the issue that you're not backing up with your repliesNOBODY said anything about losing essential body fat. BF% is like you said, playing around with percentages. and since when were we çoncerned with the whole story? this was nevier a concern from the start, just something that you added in to trying to make things more complicated then they are. i say this the third time, the issue now is your error in which you thnk it is impossible to get below 5% bodyfat%. and we also never really talked about fat loss, but Bf % loss. so, the bottom line is you're wrong when you said you cannot go less than 5% bodyfat. it is merely a percentage of your TOTAL weight, so it's very much possible. My 'theory'' is not cooked up, i say again. just because you're wrong doesn't mean you have to run around in circles and not address the issue. you have to admit your errors. instead of admitting to your error, you added in useless stuff and put words in my mouth to try and mask your ignorance. even mods are not right everytime.[/quote] Do you have any idea at all how extreme the 3% bodyfat goal Ocelot wants to achieve is? Read this. www.phentermine.com/overweightvsobesity.htmThe 5% limit was something I read long ago, so I can't quote the source. You want to insist on being right, go ahead. But don't try to discredit me with personal attacks. Continue, and you will face the consequences. This is your first warning. Don't know what's wrong with Ocelot to suddenly fire me after over something I said so long ago. Is % bodyfat such a touchy subject?
|
|
ljefe15
On my way to a better body
Posts: 75
|
Post by ljefe15 on May 18, 2005 22:03:09 GMT -5
Dear mod.. serously, irx is right. its percentage, PERCENTAGE after all. And, nobody ever said bout being on 3% forever! Its a fact that bodybuilding is a dangerous sport, expecially during contest prep. the pros take crazy nuts to look their best just for this 1-2 days. this is where all their work throughout the year pays off. So striving to be at 3% for the show though risky, is not something one should go all crazy about. after that, the bf would return, and the bber would continue at his 9-10% bf, healthily. bro, i know its dangerous, but seriously, no one can remain at 3% for long..
|
|
irx
Fitness Noob
Posts: 230
|
Post by irx on May 19, 2005 2:43:03 GMT -5
tell that through his head, and dear jonathon, QUOTE ME WHEN I MADE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON YOU. GO AHEAD. You're just not happy that you've being proven WRONG. it's SIMPLE MATHS to know someone with sufficient amount of lean mass like ocelot here on anabolics can get to low amounds of body fat PERCENTAGE (not fat amount). so there. i never once made an attack, so i'm goign to ignore your warning. i never once decreditted you, because you have no credit in the first place i don't think any of my posts was anything negetive. i already said i never agreed with name calling. you're just a sore loser, to put it in layman terms. you cannot be right all the time. even for a mod. you're are wrong.
|
|
irx
Fitness Noob
Posts: 230
|
Post by irx on May 19, 2005 2:48:39 GMT -5
oh, and ban me if you want, if you like to make an example of me that proving moderators wrong is strictly not allowed in here.
go ahead, ban me, but make sure you provide a valid justification, if you can find any. go go, complain to hardcore.
'' if you can't beat em, ban em ''
so much for discussion board. i guess proving people wrong is now blasphemy.
|
|
|
Post by Greentea on May 19, 2005 3:32:58 GMT -5
I do agree with you that bodyfat percentage decrease went lean muscle mass increases . Afterall , it's the ratio of bodyfat and lean muscle mass
|
|
ultimate
Fitness Guru
ALL NEW!!! Quality supplements & accessories: AFFORDABLE!!!
Posts: 1,380
|
Post by ultimate on May 19, 2005 11:03:53 GMT -5
Here's my view. It is hard for naturals to go below 6%. Even if they can, they will lose plenty of muscle mass. As a natural gain muscle they will gain some fat at the same time. As a person lose fat, they will lose some muscle mass. This is the rule of nature. Drugs can help a person break the rule of nature.
|
|
irx
Fitness Noob
Posts: 230
|
Post by irx on May 20, 2005 0:39:17 GMT -5
exactly, for a person who is sufficiently tall enough and has a large amount of lean mass, below 5% is not out in the realms of impossibility at all. so much for ''impossibel below 5%'', eh.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on May 20, 2005 12:03:22 GMT -5
Let me set this straight. It is clear that irx cannot discuss things in a civilised manner. Just look at how he interjected himself. It was between me and Ocelot. For whatever reason, Ocelot flamed me for something I said weeks ago, so I gladly flamed him back. He dismissed what I said as crap with no reason, so I shot back with what I knew. For whatever reason, irx decided to interject. His first post was roughly two thirds reason, one third flame. I chose to ignore the flame and concentrate on reason. For everything he said in all his posts, the only reason he gave was a mathematical one, which was purely theoretical. I didn't accept it because I felt wasn't complete. The maths may say it can be so, but practically, humanly, can it be so? A 100kg man having less than 5kg of bodyfat, for example? From what I know, just impossible! Majority of his second post was flame. It was mainly on his insistence on "making me admit I was wrong". It was here that he decided to bring my moderator status into the matter. Again, I posted my reasons, and warned him not to make attacks against me. For the next two posts, he decided to make things personal. Is the issue any more about whether one can have less than 5% bodyfat? Even if I said something that is outright wrong like "candy gives you muscles", do I deserve to be spoken to in such a manner? Just read for yourself the manner in which the words were written. irx will have to learn that so-called "being right" does not mean he can speak to others in such a manner. Many topics are controversial. Some posters even say "outrageous" things and ask "stupid" questions. Would it be considerate to say "of course candy doesn't grow muscles, are you such an idiot"? The fact is correct, but the manner in which it is said leaves much to be desired. He wants to be right, then do so with reason. Want to flame, let's rumble, I always welcome the opportunity to give back as good as I get, but not when it becomes personal. My moderator status is entirely a non-issue. He made it an issue. He made it an issue that I "don't want to admit I'm wrong". Finally he made an issue out of me, and that's personal. I just stuck to the facts I knew, and I even posted a link to back it up. That's discussion. Read all his posts and see how he "discusses". Beyond his mathemetical reason, which is the only thing relevant to the discussion, what is there? A whole lot of things about me, me, me. I've already messaged Hardcore about this. "Read this. sgbodybuilding.proboards12.com/index.cgi?board=pictures&action=display&thread=1112697912Can you activate my admin powers? I want to clear up and delete the whole mess. As for irx, if he gets personal again I will just have to straighten him out. " Here's his reply: "hey jon, thanks a lot for your msg.. I will del the "HOT" msgs that IRX left on you..i know is tough to tolerate people once in a while.. as a moderator we have to be professional about such stuff.... and maintain the professionality of such stuff.... i will only give out admin powers to those that i can entrust to as time goes on...so dont worry abt it... my friend...just tolerate him for a while...instead of firing at each other.. do let me know what do you think of this.. Cheers, HardCore " My answer: "Fine, I accept. I would have closed the thread and edited any more personal attacks, but I haven't had any admin functions since the board got upgraded." So to irx, here's what we can do. We either continue/discontinue this discussion in a civilised manner, or... you can do whatever you see fit, and be dealt with accordingly. Consider this a second warning. To the issue at hand, I ask, very politely, for some links of people with less than 5% bodyfat still walking around. That's all. I've used Google with "people with less than 5% bodyfat" and came up only with links to obesity and health problems associated with it. This is not about proving me wrong, I too want to know if it is possible to have <5% bodyfat and be still walking around. As for me, I'll just stick to what I know in the meantime. As for the rest, thank you for your contributions.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on May 20, 2005 14:54:35 GMT -5
Dear mod.. serously, irx is right. its percentage, PERCENTAGE after all. And, nobody ever said bout being on 3% forever! Its a fact that bodybuilding is a dangerous sport, expecially during contest prep. the pros take crazy nuts to look their best just for this 1-2 days. this is where all their work throughout the year pays off. So striving to be at 3% for the show though risky, is not something one should go all crazy about. after that, the bf would return, and the bber would continue at his 9-10% bf, healthily. bro, i know its dangerous, but seriously, no one can remain at 3% for long.. I would like to have something more than just numbers. Yeah, the maths says it can be so, but can it be so? Doesn't matter for how long or for what reason. Just give something more to read.
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on May 20, 2005 15:02:35 GMT -5
Here's my view. It is hard for naturals to go below 6%. Even if they can, they will lose plenty of muscle mass. As a natural gain muscle they will gain some fat at the same time. As a person lose fat, they will lose some muscle mass. This is the rule of nature. Drugs can help a person break the rule of nature. You're not joking? Drugs can actually do that? Make someone have less than 5% bodyfat? And the person is still walking around? Give me something to read about this please.
|
|
irx
Fitness Noob
Posts: 230
|
Post by irx on May 20, 2005 21:21:30 GMT -5
alright then, let's take this in a civilised manner. but i will still mantain i never made any personal attacks. i amicably put across my mathematical answer, which many people agree here. I even started out with saying '' i don't agree with the name calling'' And what do you mean '' it's a problem between you can ocelot'' ? This is completely irrelevent - we're on a discussion board where anybody can quote anyone. Let's try this again. Suppose a person is at 200lbs, 6% BF. That puts him at 12lb of fat, including essential fat. 200lb at 6% bf is very achieveble, with proper training and diet. now, essential fat levels do not increase with increased LBM, heck, normal fat levels do not have to always increase with increases in LBM. Now, look at this case of someone at 280lb, but has the same amount of essential fat as the 200lb person How is this impossible? Now, out 280lb is sitting at ~4.3% bodyfat. Sme amount of fat amount with the smaller person, are you telling me just ebcause our bigger friend has more lean mass he's gonna die ? That's the rationale between this. If you can see this, then you can continue to be right, there's no point for me to get this across to soembody who has already made up his mind. Instead of parroting what you hear somewhere else, it's good to apply some common sense sometimes. With drugs and anabolics, and on a sufficiently tall person, this is pretty d**n possible. And regarding the warnings, i'm going to ignore it again because i mantain i never once stepped out of line. I'll admit my explaination before was pretty crappy, and my manner was not very friendly, but personal attacks? c'mon, if i was gonna flame i wouldn't have even TRIED EXPLAINING in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by doinker on May 21, 2005 12:41:27 GMT -5
yikes....so....aggresive....
Roid Rage perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Greentea on May 21, 2005 21:55:45 GMT -5
Actually both Irx and jonathan are right , each of them stand is theorically sound .
Case officially close . both are right .
|
|