LEVEL of DELUSIONALITY...

[omg]

10lbs is a lot IF it's muscle. where people lose the plot though and become...i hate to say it...'permabulkers' is when they are unable to discern fat/water from muscle ie "omg, i gained 20lbs of muscle in a year" and they are absolutely convinced, but the cold hard reality is that it was 5lbs muscle, 8lbs fat and 7lbs water. so what they invariably do is continue to add weight because they are fearful of not making progress or losing progress, and eventually end up a fat ass.

you're not even close to your genetic limit yet (unless your genetic limit is to have muscular dystrophy).

190 in that condition = 130lbs ripped if your pre-contest is spot on. seriously, ask an experienced competitive bber that you know will give you a totally unbiased answer and tell you the truth. hell, ask Arvilla...Mike knows very well what it's like to be deluded by numbers (he may still be ). i bet he didn't have a clue that when he shed all that stuff he thought was muscle, he would eventually become shredded (and he was in his 1st contest) at 185 ripped, but you are not Mike and what i see here (honestly with no hate) is around 130lbs shredded.

i know you don't desire to be shredded, but you do want to be bigger. that's why it's useful to know your lean body mass, so you don't get carried away and delude yourself with numbers. don't get me worng, you do look fairly muscular in the upper body and you're not fat, but if you wish to increase your lean body mass, why on earth are you neglecting your lower body there's around 10lbs of muscle you could gain in a year right there.

seriously, you obviously want to impress or you wouldn't be whoring yourself all over the internet, so 'shut up and squat' for a year, come back and whore yourself again and you might find that you get replaced as the poster boy for the metrosexual guido association.

130 pounds shredded hahaha, u sure are "knowledgeable"

[BEAST 8692]

Your 130 pound assessment does not make any sense.

i have based this on the fact that he's 5'9' and 5'9 in that clip. yes he's carrying about 60lbs of bodyfat...

but ,as i said, ask any experienced competitive bber what he would weigh shredded while maintaining natural status.

[Special Ed]

mattc is 180 at about 17-18% there. would look very very sharp for natural at 155-160. without hormones mattc peaks at maybe 165-170 natural.

[michael arvilla]

10lbs is a lot IF it's muscle. where people lose the plot though and become...i hate to say it...'permabulkers' is when they are unable to discern fat/water from muscle ie "omg, i gained 20lbs of muscle in a year" and they are absolutely convinced, but the cold hard reality is that it was 5lbs muscle, 8lbs fat and 7lbs water. so what they invariably do is continue to add weight because they are fearful of not making progress or losing progress, and eventually end up a fat ass.

you're not even close to your genetic limit yet (unless your genetic limit is to have muscular dystrophy).

190 in that condition = 130lbs ripped if your pre-contest is spot on. seriously, ask an experienced competitive bber that you know will give you a totally unbiased answer and tell you the truth. hell, ask Arvilla...Mike knows very well what it's like to be deluded by numbers (he may still be ). i bet he didn't have a clue that when he shed all that stuff he thought was muscle, he would eventually become shredded (and he was in his 1st contest) at 185 ripped, but you are not Mike and what i see here (honestly with no hate) is around 130lbs shredded.

i know you don't desire to be shredded, but you do want to be bigger. that's why it's useful to know your lean body mass, so you don't get carried away and delude yourself with numbers. don't get me worng, you do look fairly muscular in the upper body and you're not fat, but if you wish to increase your lean body mass, why on earth are you neglecting your lower body there's around 10lbs of muscle you could gain in a year right there.

seriously, you obviously want to impress or you wouldn't be whoring yourself all over the internet, so 'shut up and squat' for a year, come back and whore yourself again and you might find that you get replaced as the poster boy for the metrosexual guido association.

So true...........i spent a good decade at 270 lbs or more(once got up as high as 312lbs)
if you would have told me that i would be 197 "ripped" and that i needed to lose in excess of 70 lbs for that first show
i would have told you you were CRAZY!.............

[BEAST 8692]

You are claiming that MattC = 33% bodyfat at 180, and that your empirical "knowledge" about dieting is sure to apply in his case.

-> Many real naturals can get shredded without turning into 130 pound sceletons. Newsflash.

33% bodyfat at 180

about that, yep.

getting shredded natural is no piece of cake (pardon pun) and you need to take everything into account here.

i'm NOT saying cut or lean at 130. i'm saying shredded at 130.

you'd be surprised at just how much fat and water he would have to lose and completely natural, althought, unless he naturally has a lot of estrogen in his body, he may be taking something.

if he trains his legs hard for a year (he won't becasue guidos don't ) he might have a higher lbm index.

[BEAST 8692]

So true...........i spent a good decade at 270 lbs or more(once got up as high as 312lbs)
if you would have told me that i would be 197 "ripped" and that i needed to lose in excess of 70 lbs for that first show
i would have told you you were CRAZY!.............

197 .

sorry Mike. i took 12lbs off ya. wasn't sure how tall you were though.

[michael arvilla]

Except, you were a lot fatter than what Matt C is at 180. This BEast dude gets his "MattC=33% bf# estimate from his ass".

Oh i was def lot fatter than Mad Matt!!...................i was just saying Beast is right about how we don't know how much we REALLY have to lose in order to get totally shredded,and how we think a lot of water and fat is actually muscle tissue when it's not

[The Master]

Oh i was def lot fatter than Mad Matt!!...................i was just saying Beast is right about how we don't know how much we REALLY have to lose in order to get totally shredded,and how we think a lot of water and fat is actually muscle tissue when it's not

That I can agree with, and that Matt has to loose a lot of weight to get really shredded, I can agree with also.

But the 130 pound estimate is simply wrong.

[michael arvilla]

That I can agree with, and that Matt has to loose a lot of weight to get really shredded, I can agree with also.

But the 130 pound estimate is simply wrong.

I think you might need to watch this again bro!
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fnQ8MVTVj50

BOOOOM BABY!

[The Master]

I think you might need to watch this again bro!
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fnQ8MVTVj50

BOOOOM BABY!

MaxC brings it 

[BEAST 8692]

Your estimate is still way off.

As long as he diets slowly (1 pound a week), there is no way he'll end up shredded at 130. If he goes for the starvation route for quick weightloss (like most do), he'll be very light.

no offence, but have you ever got really shredded in your life?

i was going to say, ever done a comp, but many turn up on stage looking like a cow that hasn't been milked (goodrum).

if matt got truly shredded, you would see just what he has got. fo one thing, i guarantee you that he would be laughed off stage by everyone in the auditorium because he would have a 6 yr old girl's chest and legs and very little of everything else (delts are decent though).

[Fury]

Guy asking me about my avatar.

Is that Chad Mower in your avatar?  Good to see the legend lives on.

Disrespecting the KING.

[BEAST 8692]

Not super shredded, but very very lean.

The numbers just don't support your estimate, even though the BB jargon do.

Look at Leafy bug, he got quite shredded at 147, and Matt is just about the size Leafy was before he dieted down. With some training, leafy can step on stage at 150+, and don't tell me he can outweight MattC by 20 pounds.

whether you believe it or not, Leafy has always had more overall muscle mass than Matt C.

Leafy was ripped, 147 and about 5"10/11 if i remember correctly, but more than that, the guy definitely had more muscle and his lower body had far far more muscle.

sorry, but Matt is not of leafy's calibre physique wise.

[shiftedShapes]

I think he would be really shredded at 135, and possibly contest ready at 140

130 is a little bit harsh

[Matt C]

Below is another picture of a friend of mine.  Some of you might say he is more muscular than me or what have you.  You guys are confusing my lack of conditioning in my midsection to generalize as if I am fat all over.  In some areas I am extremely lean, I've just never trained abs before because I was perpetually bulking and figured they wouldn't show anyway.  As I now know, I'm lean enough to have abs, the problem is they are not developed.

Put me side-by-side to my friend and our muscle quality is basically the same.  He just has abs so you might at first assume he is 8% body fat or something.  If we were to both flex our biceps you would see that I have no more fat or skin on mine than he does on his.

Discuss.

[shiftedShapes]

Below is another picture of a friend of mine.  Some of you might say he is more muscular than me or what have you.  You guys are confusing my lack of conditioning in my midsection to generalize as if I am fat all over.  In some areas I am extremely lean, I've just never trained abs before because I was perpetually bulking and figured they wouldn't show anyway.  As I now know, I'm lean enough to have abs, the problem is they are not developed.

Put me side-by-side to my friend and our muscle quality is basically the same.  He just has abs so you might at first assume he is 8% body fat or something.  If we were to both flex our biceps you would see that I have no more fat or skin on mine than he does on his.

Discuss.

you are dellusional, diet down and you will see that we were right. 

[michael arvilla]

Your abs are there MATT ...............you just have to get to a low enough body fat % to see them

[Matt C]

you are dellusional, diet down and you will see that we were right. 

No I won't. 

What program would Milos recommend for me?

Some more pictures.  Discuss.

[shiftedShapes]

Your abs are there MATT ...............you just have to get to a low enough body fat % to see them

yep a lot of perma-bulkers convince themselves that they have poor seperation / definition to avoid admitting to themselves that their muscles are just covered by fat.

Arnold once said that if you can't see your serratus muscles you're not a bodybuilder.

[Miss Demeanor]

Matt is suffering Delusion and Dementia of nearly the highest order.  Clearly the higher end of the scale is where Mr. Canning can be found.    http://www.canyonhouse.com/global_deterioration_scale.htm


Mr. Canning is the very definition of a lunatic and is undoubtedly insane as he looks worse every year, but yet he puts in more "work" on his physique.

The Psychotic Delusion and Illusion thus going unrealized and unrecognized cognitively by Mr. Canning conciously as well as sub-conciously.

Somebody needs to intervene.

Pot, kettle, black.  You're a terrible writer, especially when you get full of yourself (e.g., the post I'm quoting right now).  As I recall, however, you fancy yourself some kind of wordsmith ...

I won't even comment on how stupid it is to chide "Mr. Canning" for not "recognizing" his subconscious thoughts.  (Yes, it's subconscious, with an extra s -- and no hyphen.)

[natural al]

yep a lot of perma-bulkers convince themselves that they have poor seperation / definition to avoid admitting to themselves that their muscles are just covered by fat.

Arnold once said that if you can't see your serratus muscles you're not a bodybuilder.

newsflash:

not everyone needs to walk around at sub 8% BF levels and just because they don't does not mean they're not a "bodybuilder".

matt c is not "fat"..he's fine for what he's doing, if he went to compete at a show in that type of shape then he would be "fat"

[Option D]

newsflash:

not everyone needs to walk around at sub 8% BF levels and just because they don't does not mean they're not a "bodybuilder".

matt c is not "fat"..he's fine for what he's doing, if he went to compete at a show in that type of shape then he would be "fat"

Epic truth


BIZUMP

[Miss Demeanor]

Question:

Some of you guys seem almost obsessed with bodybuilders fooling themselves about their LBM.

Ok:  Why?  

I agree with you in part.  Yeah, lots of lifters are overfat and think they're more muscular than they actually are.  

But the way you're picking at Matt's a little strange.  Those images and videos aren't new.  He doesn't claim to be anything special.  Even if he thinks he'd be shredded at 160 or 170 or whatever when reality differs, who cares?  It seems like if folks are so offended by falsehoods, they'd pick a bigger target.  Blasting a nice boy like Matt ... ?

[Miss Demeanor]

Epic truth


BIZUMP

Yeppers.  Natural Al hit the nail on the head.

[Krankenstein]

I think he would be really shredded at 135, and possibly contest ready at 140

130 is a little bit harsh

If those pics are him at 180......he would be emaciated at 140.  Contest ready would be 155 - 160