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.
You're wrong, because the direction and strengh of the correlation is only relevant if it's linear and absolute for all guven specimens, which is nothe the case here. In fact, not only is the correlation not linear between individuals, but it's also not linear for a single individual. Let me give you an example to elucidate what I'm saying. Imagine that a bodybuilder has 20% bodyfat and he drops it to 10% bodyfat. Now imagine that his causes and increase in "X" in muscular separations, in which the incognita "X" is the number of new separations that appeared as a result of the drop in bodyfat. Now, imagine that his bodyfat willn drop another 10% to 0% - just imagine it, hypothetically: Will his number of muscular separations be increased by "X" again? Unlikely. So you're flat out wrong.
"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.
But your hypotghesis is flawed because there's no indication that Dorian had either more bodyfat
or water than Ronnie in his body. At his best, Dorian was at 3% bodyfat, and this is practically as low as Human Beings can go. There is no evidence that Ronnie was lower. As far as water levels, Dorian was arguably lower at his best than any other bodybuilder in history. All things considered, and since Dorian's bodyfat
and water levels were as low or lower than Ronnie's, then he your conjecture is flat out wrong.
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.
And this is what I've been saying. Ronnie had more separations, but Dorian had a tighter skin texture, and you have no way of showing that the variables that you arbitrarily chose to argue that Ronnie had better conditioning are a better indication of fat and water levels than Dorian's hard appearance.
And no, regression analysis is not the best way to access this; a magnetic ressonance imaging of their bodies at their best ever forms would indicate that much better. put Ronnie and Dorian in the machine and measure the subcutaneous fat levels and water levels and that would tell you whether separations or a hard appearance are better indications of conditioning. Period.
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.
Ok, but you said that Ronnie had less fat and water than Dorian because he was more separated, so make up your mind.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
