What if Rip and Lyle are both right?

[EJLouis]

Assumptions:
Lyle is correct with .5lbs of DRY muscle per week for the average individual
Rip knows how to use calipers, since this is NOT his first time.
Rip's initial assessment of Zach of 10% is accurate
Zach is not average since he is being highlighted as a case study.
75% of WET muscle is water

Assumption that is INCORRECT:
DRY muscle is NOT equal to LBM <--- THIS IS NOT THE SAME... EVER!
(I think this is where most people leaped to the wrong conclusion)

Zach Evetts
Bodyweight on 8/27/09: 162
Bodyweight on 11/16/09: 217
Bodyweight gain: 55 lbs.
Bodyfat: 18.40%
Lean Body Mass @ 162: 146 lbs.
Lean Body Mass @ 217: 177 lbs.

Gain in LBM in 11 weeks: 31.27 lbs., or 2.84 lbs./week
Gain in bodyfat in 11 weeks: 23.73 lbs.

WET muscle is 75% water so 1lb of DRY muscle = 4lbs of WET muscle or a 1:4 ratio

So 11 weeks x 0.5 lb = 5.5 lbs of DRY muscle
Now lets add the water into the muscle at the 1:4 ratio = 22 lbs
22lbs of WET muscle = 2lbs per week

1) Using Lyle's number we can account for 22lbs of the 31.27lbs referenced by Rip. <-- the gap is closing fast!
2) Zach being an underweight novice MIGHT tip this number up by being able to gain faster then average at first.
3) Of the LBM gained, some of it will not be muscle or muscle related weight. If he was doing GOMAD and the see-food diet during the last weigh in some of the weight will be milk/water/food being processed through his system that wouldn't of been present in his initial weigh in.
4) Some degree of error with calipers and initial BF reading



Now with Cliff quickly:

Bodyweight on 7/15/09: 175
Bodyweight on 10/15/09: 220
Bodyfat: 15.30%
Lean Body Mass: 186.34 lbs.

Assuming 12% bodyfat on 7/15/09,
LBM @ 175: 154 lbs.
Gain in LBM in 12 weeks: 32.34 lbs., or 2.69 lbs./week
Using Lyle's .5 lbs = 6lbs x 4 (ratio of wet muscle) = 24 lbs accounted for
Unaccounted: 8.34 lbs

Assuming 10% bodyfat on 7/15/09,
LBM @ 175: 157.5 lbs.
Gain in LBM in 12 weeks: 28.84 lbs., or 2.40 lbs./week
Using Lyle's .5 lbs = 6lbs x 4 (ratio of wet muscle) = 24 lbs accounted for
Unaccounted: 4.84 lbs


Let the flaming begin!

[Bloodninja666]

[insert Colin Powell gif here]

[WayneRooney]

Or worse, what if Rip and Lyle are both wrong? Oh my god!

[Raskolnikov]

Or worse, what if Rip and Lyle are both wrong?

More likely, IMO.

[EJLouis]

Or worse, what if Rip and Lyle are both wrong? Oh my god!

OMG! I hope not, I'll have to disassemble my shrines to them. Not to mention get the tattoos removed.

[WayneRooney]

Hahaha!

And you'll have to lose all the strength and muscle you gained from training.

[gzt]

Every single bit of this entire conversation is bullshit.

[EJLouis]

Hahaha!

And you'll have to lose all the strength and muscle you gained from training.

As long as it doesn't happen while I'm under the bar.


Every single bit of this entire conversation is bullshit.

Which part? You could be right, but it's unclear since you didn't really elaborate much.

The conversation is bullshit since it's all true, why are we discussing it (?)
The conversation is bullshit since we can't verify anything to be true (?)
The conversation is bullshit, what's for lunch? (?)

[coreJack]

Let the flaming begin!
Assuming the 75% water figure is approximately correct, it would seem to account for the discrepancy. But is the upper end of muscle growth quoted in dry muscle (if so, how are they measuring that) or LBM?

[PVC]

This "analysis" is so fucking stupid it's embarassing.

First of all, it's a 3:1 ratio of water:muscle in "wet muscle" (a.k.a. all muscle tissue in a living human being). Just so you know.

Second:
"Wet muscle" is 75% water and 25% tissue. Okay. But the thing is, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS "DRY MUSCLE" IN A LIVING HUMAN BEING. Saying that he gained 31.27 lbs of wet muscle, which is 7.82 lbs of "dry" muscle, is completely irrelevant because muscle will always be "wet muscle". The water gain associated with the "dry" muscle is necessary to sustain the "dry" muscle. Separating the two is a waste of time from the perspective of gaining lean body mass, because the two cannot be separate in a living being. Get it? When Lyle said that the maximum rate of muscle growth is 0.5 lbs per week, he didn't mean 0.5 lbs of "dry" muscle, because he's not a huge fucking tool.

I think you're just overreacting to the debate going on because you can't stand to see two people that you look up to having differing opinions. Well, I feel for you, but this post is a pretty poor way of dealing with it. HTFU.

[Shaf]

HAHAHAHAH.

This is the most delightfully stupid thing I've read all year.

That is sublime.

Every one of you thinking that this post made sense needs to revisit what sort of education you've had or are curently getting.

[gzt]

Which part? You could be right, but it's unclear since you didn't really elaborate much.

The conversation is bullshit since it's all true, why are we discussing it (?)
The conversation is bullshit since we can't verify anything to be true (?)
The conversation is bullshit, what's for lunch? (?)
Well, your entire post is bullshit. The "debate" in the other thread is a bullshit debate (though I am interested to see where McDonald's contention about LBM gain rates comes from).

[mstrofbass]

Jesus christ this is fucking stupid. I don't want to hear one more goddamn comment about this whole thing until someone explains where these fucking estimates relating to max LBM gains are coming from.

[lylemcd]

Hahahahahahaha.

You guys are hilarious. Just proving my point about the Starting strength FORUM MEMBERS on a day to day basis.

Lyle

[Sami]

For.

[Sami]

Fuck's.

[Sami]

Sake.

[PMDL]

your mom's a whore

[BryanM]

someone explains where these fucking estimates relating to max LBM gains are coming from.
It was in one of RIP's articles. The Novice Effect, over to the left over there.

<--- At the bottom of the second list.

The ~2 lbs of nonfat mass gain a week feels about right. Just from my personal experience going from 180 > 210 in a bit over a month.

It's not like it's a big damn deal. It's not like it's sustainable once that phase has passed.


Seriously, are you guys all just illiterate morons?

So thank you for proving my point about this forum and how you're all a bunch of illiterate dickswingers

I liek u. Do you

[ ] Liek me too

[ ] Liek me way too much

Plz check one plz

[mstrofbass]

It was in one of RIP's articles. The Novice Effect, over to the left over there.

<--- At the bottom of the second list.

The ~2 lbs of nonfat mass gain a week feels about right. Just from my personal experience going from 180 > 210 in a bit over a month.

It's not like it's a big damn deal. It's not like it's sustainable once that phase has passed.

Yes, it IS a big deal when people keep saying someone is wrong, and try to cite those numbers but having no idea where they actually come from. Particularly if it's just from observation, then it's fucking retarded to say someone is wrong because it surpasses this "observed" limit.

[Sami]

your mom's a whore

http://www.thecoast.ca/imager/bitch_please_/b/original/1078109/4040/bitch_20please_gif-magnum.jpg

[gzt]

Hahahahahahaha.

You guys are hilarious. Just proving my point about the Starting strength FORUM MEMBERS on a day to day basis.

Lyle
You win this round.

[EJLouis]

Hahahahahahaha.

You guys are hilarious. Just proving my point about the Starting strength FORUM MEMBERS on a day to day basis.

Lyle

Mmmm. I. guess. I. am. wrong. Thanks for laughing.

I was looking for a discrepancy that could be explained when obviously my bro science is not up to par. Don't slam the whole of the forum members because of something stupid that I said. As you can see you're not the only one who thinks I'm a fucktard.

I promised I will dismantle my shrine to you. <sniff>

Lyle, you might actually know the answer to this (or anyone else): What is the ratio of muscle gain to LBM gain? I'm assuming that 1lb of LBM gain is not equal to 1lb of muscle gain.

@PMDL: Say hi to my mom when you see her next.

BTW Yes. I'm a fucktard. I was throwing something out there. I was kind of hoping to get a little more insight. <shrug>

[nobodyhome]

Mmmm. I. guess. I. am. wrong. Thanks for laughing.

I was looking for a discrepancy that could be explained when obviously my bro science is not up to par. Don't slam the whole of the forum members because of something stupid that I said. As you can see you're not the only one who thinks I'm a fucktard.

I promised I will dismantle my shrine to you. <sniff>

Lyle, you might actually know the answer to this (or anyone else): What is the ratio of muscle gain to LBM gain? I'm assuming that 1lb of LBM gain is not equal to 1lb of muscle gain.

@PMDL: Say hi to my mom when you see her next.

BTW Yes. I'm a fucktard. I was throwing something out there. I was kind of hoping to get a little more insight. <shrug>

Here's what he has to say, from here (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/general-philosophies-of-muscle-mass-gain.html):



When I say ‘gain 1 lb of muscle’ that means 1 lb actual lean body mass. That includes roughly 100-120 grams of actual contractile protein, water, glycogen, etc. that all goes into that one pound of muscle. Make sense? A one pound gain of visible muscle mass contains 100-120 grams of actual protein and everything else contributing to that pound.
What I’m NOT saying is that you’re gaining an actual one pound (454 grams) of contractile tissue. That would represent about 4 pounds of actual muscle gained (454 / 120 = ~4). Because 4 pounds of actual muscle would contain about that many grams of contractile protein.
As well, my comment about muscle mass not being the same as lean body mass was more referring to the fact that lean body mass includes things like water, bone, organs, glycogen and a lot of stuff that isn’t actual contractile tissue.
Hope that makes sense
Lyle

[EJLouis]

Here's what he has to say, from here (http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/general-philosophies-of-muscle-mass-gain.html):

Thanks. I guess from this point on it's ad-hom for me. Cheers