Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 22, 2014, 11:50:54 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2
1  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Gallery of The Natural Ideal on: August 22, 2008, 01:49:21 PM
height: 5'9 1/4"
weight: 202 lbs.
neck: 18"
chest: 48"
biceps: 18 1/2"
forearm: 16 1/2"
wrist: 7 1/2"
waist: 30"
hips: 42"
thigh: 26"
knee: 14"
calf: 18"
ankle: 8 1/2"

I'm having a hard time believing these are legit measurements. Nearly 19 inch arms!?

Scaled to current and past drug-free champion bodybuilders, Sandow could have weighed 202 pounds at 12.7% body fat.  However, his measurements are almost all exaggerated (with the exceptions of possibly his chest and neck).  Scaling his height and bone structure to more current champs, his stats would be:

weight: 202 lbs @ 12.7% body fat
neck: 17.6"
chest: 49.0"
biceps: 17.9"
forearm: 14.4"
thigh: 24.0"
calf: 16.0"

You have to consider how the measurements were taken.  Was his neck flexed?  His forearm goosenecked?  His chest when he inhaled and/or flexed?  Was his thigh measurement taken at mid-thigh or up by the crotch?  Like most showmen, Sandow probably just exaggerated for shock value.
2  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Your Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurements on: May 06, 2008, 07:36:11 AM
Lawrence and Ahmed, I know it's been awhile and I'm bringing back a long dead thread, but I just checked your sites and have to say you have great physiques.  Ahmed, your biceps are amazing and Lawrence, your chest is phenomenal.  Best of luck to both of you.

3  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Your Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurements on: June 10, 2007, 06:39:33 AM
I think a lot of people who say they have 18 inch arms carry about 2 inches of fat so if they were lean they would really only have sixteen inch arms.  I was only about 25 lbs overwieght at one point and when I lost the wieght my arms lost an inch even though they actually have more muscle now.

Few people actually realize the effect that even "small amounts" of body fat have on measurements (which is relative to what you consider "small amounts").  At 15% body fat my arms are about 1/8" less than what the formula predicts, but the last time I went down to 8% my arms were a full inch off the prediction (though I didn't directly train arms while dieting which probably cost me a fair bit of muscle off my arms).  I think that if I leaned out while training to maintain arm mass I might come within 1/2" of the prediction.

Incidentally, my lean body mass at 8% is about 5-6 pounds less than the formula predicts as my maximum (and I've been training very seriously for over 15 years).  For a person of my height and structure a balanced gain of 5-6 pounds of muscle equates to about a 1/2" on the upper arms, which would put both my arm measurement and my body weight roughly where the formula says they "should be".

Realistically though, I'll probably never get that additional 5-6 pounds of lean body mass  -- in my 15 years of involvement with bodybuilding I've seen only a few people who legitimately reached the formulae's predictions in lean condition without drug use ...and they were all high-level, drug-tested competitors.  Most current high-level "natural" competitors hover somewhere around or slightly under the formulae's predictions for most body parts (in fact, before the most recent edition of that article was posted it was read by several world-class drug-free bodybuilders, none of whom claimed to exceed the predictions).
4  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Your Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurements on: May 13, 2007, 05:26:22 PM
I thought this might be of interest to the drug-free people here:

Your Maximum Muscular Bodyweight and Measurements
5  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: 54 years YOUNG former Mr.Taiwan ! on: January 12, 2007, 09:08:13 AM
Huang, you're an inspiration to anyone who wants to have an amazing body as they age.
6  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Need help please!!! on: January 06, 2007, 07:57:09 PM
cornebb,

You appear to have a wide upper body and decent quads. You can't afford to neglect hamstrings ...you need thick legs to balance out your width. Lots of natural bodybuilders build nice quads but their legs remain thin because they don't have thickness in the hamstrings. Hamstrings don't look impressive to many people but they contribute greatly to the size of the legs (something like how people neglect triceps, but that's where real arm thickness lies). You cannot have impressive legs without big hamstrings.

I think you should work stiff-legged/romanian/keystone deadlifts hard and progressively, getting a good tight stretch in the hamstrings on each rep. And do at least some of your sets of squats with a wide stance and the bar low on your back - power style. Work them hard. The hamstrings are mostly fast twitch so they respond to heavy weights.

Hamstring size does not come from leg curls. Hamstring size comes from heavy Squats and deads with leg curls only as an accessory.
7  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Yuri Vlasov the idol of Arnold Shwarzzgn ( can't spell ) on: December 23, 2006, 10:38:08 AM
Richard, there's a possibility that I might be visiting Kiev in the next few months. If I get a chance I'll see if I can get Vlasov's book(s). I saw a book about gardening by Alexeev the last time I was there (yes, that Alexeev).
8  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Yuri Vlasov the idol of Arnold Shwarzzgn ( can't spell ) on: December 22, 2006, 09:58:30 PM
Very nice post Richard2004,

...for the bodybuilding fans I have to add that Vlasov was suprisingly muscular (i.e. lean) for a heavyweight/superheavyweight. Granted he didn't have the big arms and upper body musculature of the modern drug-bloated bodybuilder, but, as you say, his quads and posterior chain were massive. Now, Zhabotinsky was a bona-fide monster in the "strongman" sense.

Yuri Vlasov....


Leonid Zhabotinsky...
9  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Yuri Vlasov the idol of Arnold Shwarzzgn ( can't spell ) on: December 22, 2006, 02:10:14 PM
misc.fitness.weight

Oh man, that must have been awhile ago! I actually forgot about that place. Is it still going?
10  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Yuri Vlasov the idol of Arnold Shwarzzgn ( can't spell ) on: December 22, 2006, 12:58:57 PM
you have no evidence of that

Yes, I do. But I've gone over this a million times and I'm about as tired of it as I can get. I don't mean to be trite, but I always seem to get drawn into this conversation over and over. If you search around you'll find posts I've made on several boards (including this one IIRC) about this.

By the way, your name is very familiar to me. We've definitely "rubbed shoulders" before. Were you on the old Round Table several years ago?

I agree, this is comparing apples to oranges. Vlasov was one of the strongest men who ever lived. He ushered in the Soviet dominance of heavyweight Olympic Weightlifting (he was then surpassed by Leonid Zhabotinsky and then Vasili Alexeyev). Schwarzenegger and Park were two of the greatest, most dominant bodybuilders of their eras (and all-time). Apples and oranges.

Park also published a magazine called "Mr. Universe" in the early-50s, but it evolved into The Reg Park Journal of Physical Culture and then just The Reg Park Journal (which eventually got linked with Man's World). He also published several booklets.
11  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 22, 2006, 12:45:13 PM
I only started posting on this site recently ...as you can see, I stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest. Smiley

You sent me an email about a week or two ago right?? God, I'm sorry about that ...I was in the middle of giving an exam when I read that email (now you know what the prof does when he leaves the exam room Wink) and forgot about it after. I meant to get back to you, but it got "lost" in the inbox after that.

I just didn't have the time to maintain the site anymore ...that and I underestimated the influence that it was having. Even 3 or 4 years later I still get email every week or so about that site (or Hardgainer or something).

I tell you something weird ...at least half of the people who contact me are Engineers!
12  Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Yuri Vlasov the idol of Arnold Shwarzzgn ( can't spell ) on: December 22, 2006, 12:32:28 PM
Yuri Vlasov was a world champion Olympic Lifter, he won the Olympic Gold in 1960 and Silver in 1964. I'm not surprised if he beat Arnold in arm wrestling.

Park was probably one of the greatest drug-free bodybuilders of all time.
13  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 22, 2006, 08:16:48 AM
After 18 years of training, and several years at the top of the natural bodybuilding world, it's very unlikely that Jon's going to make significant further lean body mass gains. Depending on the exact size of Jon's skeletal structure, he may have, at most, a few pounds left in him. If Jon makes significant improvements now it will have to be in the form of perfecting his physique and addressing weaknesses (not that he appears to have any). Those improvements might make a difference visually, but they won't register much on the weight scale. Time will verify this. It's not his age that limits him, it's how close he is to his maximum potential. Jon is already there ...and it shows. Now it's about the fractions of a percent that separate the champion from the runner-up.
14  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 21, 2006, 11:35:08 AM
He said that natural BB won't grow.

I said no such thing.
15  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 20, 2006, 04:51:14 PM
Don't grow any more, Jon! Don't do it!

Don't worry ...he won't.
16  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 19, 2006, 09:50:19 AM
Ahhh, a stumpy Dubliner. Wink I'm from Newfoundland, Canada, so I'm quite familiar with things Irish.

Really thick people are outliers on the upper end of the regression because the regression is based on lean competitive bodybuiders who tend to be very mesomorphic. But even then they seem to be a relatively fixed percentage above a more mesomorphic lifter.

Just as an example of how much lean body mass (LBM) can differ when bodybuilders drop down into the single-digit bodyfat levels for contests, here's U.K. bodybuilder John Berry's stats as he got ready for the BNBF Central Championships (I'm using these stats because they're readily available on the 'net)...

Assuming he has an average skeletal structure for his height of 5'5.5", John Berry's lean body mass should be 153.3 to 157.5 lbs, depending on his exact joint circumferences.

On 1/04/06 Berry weighed 176 lbs at 11% b.f. --> LBM = 156.6 lbs

On 2/05/06 Berry weighed 167 lbs at 9% b.f. --> LBM = 152.0 lbs

On 3/06/06 Berry weighed 158.4 lbs at 6.9% b.f. --> LBM = 147.5 lbs

On 1/07/06 Berry weighed 151.8 lbs at 6.4% b.f. --> LBM = 142.1 lbs

His anticipated weight and body fat at the contest on 30/07/06 (assuming after carb loading and proper hydration) = 147.4 - 151.8 lbs at 5-5.5% --> LBM = 140.0 - 144.2 lbs

So Berry lost over 12 lbs of LBM in going from 11% to 5-6.5% b.f. At 11% he carried the LBM that would be predicted for his structure, but in "contest" shape he carried 12 lbs less LBM. Jon Harris, however, held his LBM right at the predicted maximum when he won the 2006 WNBF World Championship. So, in the off-season, Berry seems to have the raw muscle mass to compete at the world level, but he lost it in pre-contest phase. That ability to retain muscle when dropping bodyfat is probably the difference between regional champions and world champions. Of course, his muscle loss was also probably due to either an overly restrictive diet or a poorly designed pre-contest training program, or both. But it does illustrate that many drug-free bodybuilders seem to exceed the predicted LBM maximums during the "off-season" -- they may carry that LBM when they're "fatter" but they don't carry it as the contest approaches.

Using myself as an example. Right now, at ~16% bodyfat (as of this morning), I have about 1.5 lbs more LBM than my equation predicts as my maximum (after 15 years of very serious training). I'm in the process of going down to 6-8% bodyfat. When I get there it's a practical guarantee that I won't have that much LBM, and I don't have the long muscle bellies throughout every muscle group as do the more gifted mesomorphs. The last time I dieted down I was 3-7 lbs shy of that maximum (depending on hydration, time of day, etc.).

When I first formulated these equations I was a little disappointed that I was already very close to my maximums. But, realistically, after 18 total years of training, there isn't much muscle left to be gained by this drug-free body. Now it comes down to impoving weak points and overall symmetry.

I think you should definitely make the films. And diet down to the single-digits and track your lean body mass while you're doing it ...I need more data on heavy-set endomorphs. Smiley
17  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 19, 2006, 07:03:19 AM
The Luke, your weight is coming from your huge lower body structure. An average ankle measurement for a man with 7.25" wrists would be about 9". Using your 9.75" ankle, the regression gives your lean body mass as a maximum of 170.8 lbs.

That means that you are at or very near the lean body mass that top natural bodybuilders carry.  A "normal" drug-free bodybuilder of your height would carry about 155 lbs lean body mass in contest shape.

However, the math isn't quite as straight-forward as it seems. The regression was done on athletes carrying single digit percentages of bodyfat. Comparing lean body mass at over 15% and lean body mass in the single digits is a completely different ball game and can be quiite misleading. For example, the last time I went down below 8% bodyfat I actually started my diet with about 162 lbs lean mass (at 16-18% b.f.). By the time I reached 7-8% I was down to 155 lbs lean body mass. And that was a properly conducted "pre-contest" diet and routine. I believe I lost the minimum amount of muscle. Most drug-free bodybuilders lose over 10 pounds lean body mass when dieting down. I've seen some lose 20 in the process of becoming super ripped. Hydration, even things such as liver glycogen, can significantly alter lean body mass readings. For that reason "off-season" lean body mass readings are considerably higher than "contest".

That's why there are no drug-free bodybuilders that are ripped and "Lee Labrada big". Smiley

Still, you are within striking distance of your theoretically maximum weight. How long have you been training?
18  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 19, 2006, 05:56:55 AM
The Luke, if your upper and lower body structure is "balanced", then at your height and bone structure you should have a maximum lean body mass of about 163 lbs. That would put you at about 180 lbs at ~10% bodyfat (a healthy natural bodybuilder's off-season weight). In contest shape you should be roughly the same weight as Jon Harris. But for a more accurate estimate I'll also need your ankle measurement (the difference can be several pounds if you're lower body is proportionately larger).

Your lean body mass is very close to that now, but its common for lifters to register higher lean body masses when they're heavier. I'm not sure of the reason for that, but you'd lose a significant amount getting down to 10%.
19  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 18, 2006, 09:51:48 PM
I agree. The biggest fault of the FFMI is that is does not take into account the skeletal structure. However, all they really attempted to do was say, "This is how much lean mass a person of a given height can develop without drug-use". Naturally, that upper limit would be the more heavily built mesomorphs. Ectomorphs would never reach the higher FFMIs (24 up to the mid-25s), that they identified as the maximum without drugs. However, that means that drug-using ectomorphs could still be under the FFMI maximum, and therefore not seem "suspect" with regards to drug-use.

Over the past 6 years or so I've attempted to include bone structure based on wrist and ankle measurements into a regression. The fit is a surprisingly linear function of height and joint circumferences (it's actually not quite linear, but close enough for a decent approximation), with ectomorphs being able to achieve roughly 97% of what an ideal mesomorph would achieve if they had the same joint circumferences (but that's misleading because a mesomorph would, implied by definition, have a heavier bone structure). What it seems to come down to is that the "average Joe" can achieve 97% of the lean body mass that a genetically gifted person could - if they both had the same height and joint circumferences. Very large endomorphs seen to be able to build about 3% more lean body mass than an ideal mesomorph if they had the same joint circumferences. And overall, maximum potential lean body mass is fairly predictably correlated with height and joint circumferences. Of course, such estimations are merely that -- estimations based on population statistics. But I've found that they're rarely off by more than a few pounds.

For example, according to the fit, I should be able to achieve a maximum lean body mass of about 160 without drugs. In reality, after 15 years of very serious training, I'm about 97% of that (155 lbs lean body mass) and I would consider myself to have a less than average natural ability to build muscle. But I also believe that with the right training and nutrition "dedication" I can get pretty close to that 160. Maybe, maybe not, but I will nonetheless. Smiley An experienced "ectomorph" on the board came it at the same percentage in a thread yesterday (or the day before).

Another example, I just checked Jon Harris tonight (the current WNBF Champ). Given his height of 5'7" and assuming he has a wrist between 7" and 7.25" in circumference (which would be average for his height) he should have a lean body mass of about 160-164 lbs. That would put him at about 170 lbs at ~5% bodyfat and 180 lbs at ~10% bodyfat. That agrees perfectly with his contest and off-season weights that he lists on his website.

The fit really isn't meant to be a limitation, or a dictation as to how much muscle a person can build. But it does give you an idea of how much muscle you should expect to be able to develop without drugs. I think that is extremely valuable information for a drug-free bodybuilder. How many people at 5'7" would think that 180 pounds would be a "bodybuilder's" ideal weight for them? Most beginners would probably have the unrealistic expectation that they should be over 200 lbs. However, show them a picture of Jon Harris (at "only" 170 even) and they'd probably think they'd never get that big without drugs. So it does put things into the proper perspective.

When I'm a little more confident with the fit I'll write it up for one of the magazines or a book or something.
20  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 18, 2006, 07:06:18 PM
No disrespect to the old school, but that doesn't get most people fired up to hit the iron.

Plus, lost in that aspect is that, back in the day, bodybuilders actually got MARKED DOWN for appearing too ripped in contests.

I think that's part of the reason that Park lost to Reeves in 1950.

On the other hand, Park displayed some serious muscle. As did Delinger and Eiferman ...even Farbotnik at times. When they got ripped they truly were impressive. I think the magazines actually shyed away from publishing such pics because even the "bodybuilding" fans, in general, did not accept it.

I'll see if I can get some "rare" photos linked.

On a modern note: Brit natural bodybuilder Jon Harris has an "inspiring" physique. He's the current WNBF Pro Champ. But, incidently, he's no larger than the drug-free bodybuilders of the 1950s ...just much more ripped. Fittingly, at 5'7" and 170 lbs at ~5% bodyfat his FFMI is less than 25.
21  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 18, 2006, 06:42:55 PM
mwbbuilder, people like you amaze me. Your posts demonstrate ignorance, childishness and hostility; you haven't posted one fact in any of your posts, merely opinions (i.e. "There is absolutely no way in hell there was a study done with "natural bodybuilding champions"') ...yet you accuse me of not backing my statements and posting from emotion. I gave you numbers for everything I presented and the name of who did some of the research. You are not even familiar with any of this research and yet you feel qualified to dispute it???

The fact that you are unable to properly research a reference is not my problem. And I won't waste my time responding to you any longer.

However, for the other, more mature, people reading this...

Skip LaCour's heaviest competition weight was at the NPC Team Nationals in 1996. He weighed 234 lbs at a height of 5'10" (according to LaCour's own website).

At an estimated bodyfat of 6% that gives him a corrected fat-free mass index (FFMI) of 31.6.
Even if he came in at a very smooth 10% bodyfat (which he did not), his FFMI would be 30.3.
Hence my statement that LaCour had a "FFMI of more than 30". For him to achieve this without drugs is a practical impossibility.

Arnold Schwarzenegger weighed 235 at a height of 6'2" at the 1973 Mr. Olympia. By his own estimation he was 9% bodyfat. That gives him a corrected FFMI of 28.1. Even if he was a ripped 6% bodyfat (which he was not), his FFMI would still only be 29.

Hence my statement "LaCour carried more muscle in leaner condition."

I suspect that LaCour's contest weight began to drop as drug-testing methods became more sophisticated ...and yes, that is merely an opinion, but it is a quite justifiable one.

As far as I am aware, the fat-free mass index was first presented in the following reference, though this is not the only paper which has presented such research:

Kouri E.M., Pope H.G. Jr., Katz D.L., Oliva P., "Fat-free mass index in users and nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids", Clinincal Journal of Sport Medicine, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 223-8, Oct. 1995.

The Luke, you may consider my post as the first confrontational post made, however, I did, and do, take exception to this statement made initially by "mwbbuilder":  "Pure bullshit talk of science trying to justify your mere opinions. At least you are impressing yourself."

I don't take the FFMI as "gospel" either, and practically all studies and papers are flawed to some extent, but it does serve as a starting point, and it has been a useful reference for me in the formulation of my own regressions of lean body mass vs. structure. Five years ago I made my first attempt at such a fit and it's been an ongoing process since then ...that's how I told a poster in a different thread what his maximum muscular potential without drugs would approximately be.

Since you asked for my credentials:  I have degrees in Physics (minor in biochemistry), Mathematics and Statistics and Engineering (including a PhD). I have published in several international peer-reviewed scientific journals, and I currently teach undergraduate students at an accredited University. I held the largest national scholarship available for a graduate PhD student. ...but I do admit, my physics degree was quite a few years ago and DeBroglie is a little "wavy" to me now, pardon the pun Wink.

I have been bodybuilding, powerlifting and Olympic Weightlifting for over 18 years. I haved trained with beginners up to national level athletes. When I began training I weighed over 320 pounds and my best ever "bodybuilding" weight was 175 at 8% bodyfat (roughly the condition of my avatar). I have written on numerous occasions for several bodybuilding/strength training/fitness magazines (which will remain nameless as I have no desire to drag them into this sort of conversation - people who know my writing can verify this, and references are not hard to find). I have published under my own name and a pen-name. In fact, I have had articles published as far as Russia and Italy (these can also be found on the 'net).
22  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 18, 2006, 03:17:49 PM
My posts were sufficiently clear. Re-explaining things to someone incapable of understanding is a waste of time. LaCour's stats over the course of his career are readily available. Harrison Pope's papers on the "fat free mass index" were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals -- they are not difficult for even a person with your Google "skills" to find.

Researchers very often publish in several different fields at once. In fact, over the course of a career, research focus tends to change many times. I've been publishing for the past 6 years and my reseach field has changed, albeit not too dramatically, three times. That's part of the academic profession, of which you clearly have no understanding.

Why would you post a photo of Harrison Pope??? Why don't you post a photo of yourself along with your real name?

You are making a fool of yourself ...but the anonymity of your username allows that.

To any moderators reading this:

I joined this board a short time ago because I was looking for a place to maturely discuss drug-free lifting with like-minded people. As well, I joined to help less experienced people with my many years of lifting experience, publishing history with several bodybuilding magazines (both under my name and a pen name), and familiarity with many accomplished people in this area.

Quite obviously, this place has more than it's share of juvenile behaviour, immaturity and hostility. I managed a web board several years ago (at around the same time as "getbig" was just starting, BTW) and I can offer these suggestions:

My first suggestion is that you not allow members to join this board unless they post under their real names ...that will give some degree of accountability to the members. I strongly suspect that many of the more hostile members here are teenagers with very little lifting experience and very little perspective on the many aspects of bodybuilding. It appears that I am being badgered by such a character at the moment ...and I have no desire to correspond with or assist such people.

My second suggestion is that you strictly enforce the rules of this board. Disrepectful, hostile posters do nothing to help this board and only serve to reduce it to another childish internet forum that people with a legitimate interest in, and knowledge of, bodybuilding would not want to be a part of. There are enough such boards around, you don't need to be another one.
23  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Casein Protein on: December 18, 2006, 02:09:06 PM
I have no problem getting to sleep, but I can't stay asleep. I'm using Beverly Internationals Ultra-40. They add extra vitamin B12 (1250% of the RDA in each tablet). I think maybe that's the problem, it never happened with other brands.
24  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Lacour-narural or not? on: December 18, 2006, 06:13:39 AM
mwbbuilder, well my posts certainly ruffled your feathers. You obviously have some insecurity issues surrounding your lack of academic ability. Displaying your stupidity and your intimidation by what you describe as "bullshit talk of science" does nothing to support your opinion. I've already justified what I have said, but you obviously lack the intelligence to comprehend any of it.

On a more "friendly" note. You know, it isn't too late for you to educate yourself. It's a long road, but the sooner you start the sooner you'll succeed. You can obviously read, and your post was grammatically well-constructed, so you do have some potential. Nothing I've said is difficult to understand. You just need to sit down and think about it, or get someone to help you. If the math is a problem just review your grade 9 books. It's all in there.
25  Getbig Bodybuilding Boards / Natural Bodybuilding / Re: Casein Protein on: December 17, 2006, 05:50:53 PM
No thanks, enjoy you extra inch of fat around your midsection, Merry X-Mass!!!!!

That depends more largely on what you do during the rest of the day. I'm losing weight now, but I still don't hesitate to eat the cheese before bed ...at this stage it's important to hold onto as much muscle as possible. I'm losing 1-2 lbs a week until I hit probably 6-8% bf. A small amount of saturated fat before bed helps, not hurts. On the other hand, if getting absolutely shredded, at the possible cost of lost muscle, is your priority then go for the non-fat alternatives.

You don't find the liver disturbs your sleep? What brand do you take?
Pages: [1] 2
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!