ha ha ha ha, you'll call me whatever you want to? Go ahead if you want to sound like a fool. I'm not stopping you. Furthermore, my mom is not Cuban. My dad is. So there goes the rest of your comment.
Who ended up like a fool was you, after you reported me - on the five years I've been posting here, I've never reported anyone else's post - to the mods, and they didn't give me even a slap in the wrist. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
bullshit what? I said that Ronnie stated he adds roughly 5 lbs of muscle every year. Nowhere did I say that he did in fact gain that much muscle from 99 to 01. Again, your post contains nothing but lies and misinformation. Why am I not surprised? 
Then why did you bring this up, retard? You were obviously trying to imply that Ronnie gained that amount of muscle, to susbstantiate your claims that Ronnie had bigger delts, chest, etc. Boring.
Ronnie's conditioning at the 01 ASC tied Dorian's best ever conditioning. This means he carried just as much, if not less, fat and water than 93 Dorian.
This is impossible. Both were around 3% bodyfat, and while Ronnie might have been as dry as Dorian in terms of extracellular water - I'm being very generous-, he certainly had more of it insdide his muscles because they were always fuller. Regardless, I think Dorian was drier. But let's pretend they were equal in this regard. First, it is not relevant where the lean body mass is located, since we're evaluating total lean body mass. If Ronnie had bigger delts and chest and yet smaller quads, this does nothing to explain the 13 lbs difference: again, the fact remains that Dorian weights 13 lbs more with similar fat and water levels. 13 lbs of bones is impossible, and Ronnie's frame is very likely heavier. The gut distension is worse on Ronnie, so that can't be it. Now, let's pretend that Dorian did carry 13 more of gut and bones than Ronnie - not true, but let's assume. This still does nothing to prove that Ronnie had more lean mass, as they would be equal.
The only way to see who carried the most mass would be by doing a MRI and X-ray evaluation of their entire bodies, to see how much bone, nerve, organ and muscular skeletal tissue weight they had at their respective forms. Everything else is purely speculation, although the odds are strongly in my favor that I'm correct. Your assertion that Ronnie gained muscular tissue and yet lost 13 lbs of bodyweight from 1999 to 2001 is the most retarded thing I've ever read at this board. Where did that weight come from? Even if you had said that he merely maintained his muscle mass would be retarded, since it is extremely unlikely that Ronnie in his superb 1999 Olympia form had even half that much of fat and water to lose. He was drier at the 2001 ASC, but we're talking about a couple pounds here. Even if he lost water both intramuscularly as well as extramuscularly, it still would add up to 5 lbs or so, not 13 lbs. At the most.
Ronnie's quads were also downsized from previous years. His chest may have been slightly less full too. Less fat and less water plus smaller quads = most of the 10-13 lbs difference from 99.
Less fat is impossible. Less water is a few pounds at the most. And pointing out that his quads were smaller only means that he had less mass overral - if you assume that his other measurements remained stactic. He would have to have lost more than 13 lbs of quad mass to have gained mass elsewhere and yet still decrease 13 lbs in bodyweight. If he gained 10 lbs of mass elsewhere making his chest, delts, etc, bigger than Dorian's - and 10 lbs would be the minimum for his chest, delts and triceps to become visibly bigger than Dorian's, then he must have lost 23 lbs of body mass elsewhere for his bodyweight to decrease 13 lbs. Bodyfat, again, is impossible, because the 1999 Ronnie was at 3% bodyfat. Water is a couple pounds, but let's be generous and say that the 2001 ASC Ronnie had 5 lbs of water less than the 1999 Ronnie - a
lot of water loss!. Well, this still leaves 18 lbs for yout to explain exclusively through quad size loss. That adds up to 9 lbs of mass loss at each quad. Sorry, sport, but there's no fucking way in hell that Ronnie lost 18 lbs of quad mass from 1999 to the 2001 ASC. I don't think that the 2001 ASC Ronnie's quads were even a single inch smaller than Ronnie's at the 1999 Olympia. So you have just been schooled again, by Professor Suckmymuscle. That's bodybuilding and arithmatic 101 for you. Cheers.
The rest of him was visibly the same size as before. His muscles may have been smaller due to less intracellular water, but the difference is so minuscule that you cannot tell.
This only tells me that he lost overral lean mass anyway, since he lost quad size, and yet his measurments elsewhere remained the same. And the 1999 Coleman did not have a bigger chest or delts than Dorian. Only biceps - which explains why his arms were 1 inch bigger.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
