You gave the example of a fat man on diuretics, and I pointed out that you also need to lose bodyfat to show separations. Ergo, your suggestion that Ronnie was drier than Dorian because he showed more separations is illogical - and it would still be illogical even i the said man had a low bodyfat average. 
But the correlation is non-linear. Every guys show improved separations as they lose boyfat and water, yes, but some do more than others for reasons other than bodyat and water levels. Furthtermore, you make the mistake of assuming that separations are a yardstck to measure dryness, which couldn't be further from the truth: garing is as good and indication of that, and some bodybuilders, like Dorian, display their superior dryness through skin texture, and not separations.
Yes, but the man with the most separations is not necessarily the one with the lowest bodyfat and water levels, despite the fact that every man with good muscular separations has a low bodyat and water level.
Yes. And so does grain, which Dorian had ar in excess of Ronnie. So the argumentation is redundant.
Utterly false. Wanna bet? Your hypothesis would be correct if the correlation between striations, cuts and separations were non-variant and linear for all Human Beings. Unfortunately for you, your conjecture is non-sensical.
Bodyfat and water levels are absolutes. This means that, when you measure bodyat, you're not measuring it at some specific location, but in the whole body. If both Dorian and Ronnie are at 3% bodyfat, as an example, and yet Ronnie shows more overral separations than Dorian - as he does -, then it follows that the correlation between bodyfat and separations is non-linear and variant as far as human goes. The point here is that some areas might hacve more separations in a given bodybuilder but, if the correlation between bodyfat and separatiuons is as linear and non-variant across specimens as you predict, then the number of separations of two bodybuilders at the same given bodyfat should be similar. This is obviously not true, which means you hypothesis is incorrect.
This is true, but it is also irrelvant. Why? Because we're arguing absolutes here. If Ronnie and Dorian measure the same bodyfat, then they should have the same amount of separations overral. Sure, Dorian could have a little more here and Ronnie there, but overral, they should average exactly the same - if your hypothesis is coorect. Your inferences are incorrect, and you can't prove otherwise. Thanks for playing!
Oh, you'll need all the help that you can get!
SUCKMYMUSCLE
1)all im concerned about in a regression analysis is the strength and direction of the correlation. thus, the correlation is positive as bf and water decreases sep, hardness,cuts,striaions increase this is obvious from the pics. the correlation is exponential, and im sure if we were to run a two way ancova for both variables we would see that the above factors do in fact correlate in both the direction i specify, and the strength to a degree. i would venture that each variable is mostly linear with the last few variables skewing the data. the problem is we have two unknowns. this is were your making the mistake. dorian can be dry as a bone, but still have bf, and ronnie can have 1% bf and be holding water and still look less conditioned.
"Utterly false. Wanna bet? Your hypothesis would be correct if the correlation between striations, cuts and separations were non-variant and linear for all Human Beings. Unfortunately for you, your conjecture is non-sensical".
i wouldnt bet because we are working with unknows, two or more(size and shape play a role also). the correlation is positive, that is all that matters, non-linear is not of concern in this example, statistics yes, bodybuilding-no. it holds that as you get lower in both the above factors increase, this is a pos relationship(hardness included).therefore if someone is lacking the above factors it can be deduced quite easily that they are lacking one of the factors or a combination of both. the combination is the problem your raising. ronnie could have any level of water and bf as could dorian. this interplay creates conditioning, dorian could have zero water but a few fractions more bf resulting in less of the above factors. ronnie could have a little more water, and less bf resulting in a different look. the ideal is low in both which would result in a striated,seperated,cut, hard individual.
im not saying sep are the only markers, but they are one of them. now we are adding four more variables to the already two previous variables. this creates two categories 1a 2a, 2a,2b,2c,2d and any combination of all of these factors(a regression analysis would be best since we are being overly scientific) would give different levels of the above factors. that is, more sep, and cuts equal 3.4%bf and high water, or hard and striated equals no water and 5 bf. your only taking in account from your posts two variables which is false. they all have interplay and is much to complex for us to comment on accurately.
however, i still hold that the above four factors create a defined individual or a conditioned person. and that relationship is positive, the strength unknown obviously. a conditioned individual has both low bf and water levels and would show all of the above criteria in some arrangement. all are important, hardness doesnt trump seperations or vice versa. they are all factors.
