A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Weights
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 28th 03, 01:48 AM
Robert Schuh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights?

I took a look at the FLEX site today. They claimed Ronnie Coleman
weighed 287 lbs at the Mr. Olympia. I know how big pro BBers are, but I
also know that NONE of these guys have ever been close to 287 ripped
like they are. Ronnie is 5'8" tops and if he was actually 287 with
shredded glutes etc. he would be 100X more freaky than he already is. I
just do not understand why they keep showing these ludicrous body
weights in the magazines.

  #2  
Old October 28th 03, 02:14 AM
gps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights?

Robert Schuh wrote:

I took a look at the FLEX site today. They claimed Ronnie Coleman
weighed 287 lbs at the Mr. Olympia. I know how big pro BBers are, but I
also know that NONE of these guys have ever been close to 287 ripped
like they are. Ronnie is 5'8" tops and if he was actually 287 with
shredded glutes etc. he would be 100X more freaky than he already is. I
just do not understand why they keep showing these ludicrous body
weights in the magazines.


My guess is it is to sell more magazines, but that's just a guess.
ps
  #3  
Old October 28th 03, 02:15 AM
Spammers_Should_Be_Shot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights?


"Robert Schuh" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
I took a look at the FLEX site today. They claimed Ronnie Coleman
weighed 287 lbs at the Mr. Olympia. I know how big pro BBers are, but I
also know that NONE of these guys have ever been close to 287 ripped
like they are. Ronnie is 5'8" tops and if he was actually 287 with
shredded glutes etc. he would be 100X more freaky than he already is. I
just do not understand why they keep showing these ludicrous body
weights in the magazines.


I'm 5'-9" and 305lbs. with 3% b.f.

I'm not gonna waste any of my time explaining it to a weeny-boy like you, I
gotta go take my 'roids....

;-


  #4  
Old October 28th 03, 02:25 AM
Donovan Rebbechi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights?

In article [email protected], Robert Schuh wrote:
I took a look at the FLEX site today. They claimed Ronnie Coleman
weighed 287 lbs at the Mr. Olympia. I know how big pro BBers are, but I
also know that NONE of these guys have ever been close to 287 ripped
like they are. Ronnie is 5'8" tops and if he was actually 287 with
shredded glutes etc. he would be 100X more freaky than he already is. I
just do not understand why they keep showing these ludicrous body
weights in the magazines.


On the show, they were claiming that he had put on 20lb of muscle over the
last year. I've got the tape from last year -- I'm going to take a look, but
I dont think he looks that much different.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
  #5  
Old October 28th 03, 03:21 AM
Roger Zoul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights?

Robert Schuh wrote:
:: I took a look at the FLEX site today. They claimed Ronnie Coleman
:: weighed 287 lbs at the Mr. Olympia. I know how big pro BBers are,
:: but I also know that NONE of these guys have ever been close to 287
:: ripped like they are. Ronnie is 5'8" tops and if he was actually 287
:: with shredded glutes etc. he would be 100X more freaky than he
:: already is. I just do not understand why they keep showing these
:: ludicrous body weights in the magazines.

Finally. I'm glad to know that dude doesn't really weigh 287 lbs. What a
freak of nature! I had no idea he is only 5'8", either. Dayum!

Had me wondering if they really need CGI for the Hulk movie.


  #6  
Old October 28th 03, 06:09 AM
Robert Schuh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights?

Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

In article [email protected], Robert Schuh wrote:

I took a look at the FLEX site today. They claimed Ronnie Coleman
weighed 287 lbs at the Mr. Olympia. I know how big pro BBers are, but I
also know that NONE of these guys have ever been close to 287 ripped
like they are. Ronnie is 5'8" tops and if he was actually 287 with
shredded glutes etc. he would be 100X more freaky than he already is. I
just do not understand why they keep showing these ludicrous body
weights in the magazines.



On the show, they were claiming that he had put on 20lb of muscle over the
last year. I've got the tape from last year -- I'm going to take a look, but
I dont think he looks that much different.

Cheers,


There is no way a guy that advanced could gain 20 lbs of muscle,
especially in a year.

  #7  
Old October 28th 03, 07:31 AM
Barry Wong
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights?

Roger Zoul wrote:

Finally. I'm glad to know that dude doesn't really weigh 287 lbs. What a
freak of nature! I had no idea he is only 5'8", either. Dayum!


Do you really think he's a freak of _nature_?
  #8  
Old October 28th 03, 07:37 AM
Proton Soup
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Why do the BBing Mags keep lying about weights?

Donovan Rebbechi wrote in message ...
In article [email protected], Robert Schuh wrote:
I took a look at the FLEX site today. They claimed Ronnie Coleman
weighed 287 lbs at the Mr. Olympia. I know how big pro BBers are, but I
also know that NONE of these guys have ever been close to 287 ripped
like they are. Ronnie is 5'8" tops and if he was actually 287 with
shredded glutes etc. he would be 100X more freaky than he already is. I
just do not understand why they keep showing these ludicrous body
weights in the magazines.


On the show, they were claiming that he had put on 20lb of muscle over the
last year. I've got the tape from last year -- I'm going to take a look, but
I dont think he looks that much different.


Maybe he's gonna take a few months off now and lose 20lbs, just so he
can gain it back for next year. Anyhow, it's nice to see a short guy
win, I'm only 5'8" myself. Personally, I wouldn't mind gaining enough
mass to be a little scary looking, but the freaky stuff, well, it's
just... that boy ain't right I tell ya, he just ain't right.

Proton Soup
  #9  
Old October 28th 03, 07:44 AM
David
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Diet/exercise question

Lyle - great info got to thank you

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyle McDonald"
Newsgroups: misc.fitness.weights
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 4:33 AM
Subject: Diet/exercise question


Steve Freides wrote:

Hoff wrote:

"Steve Freides" wrote in message
...
Hoff wrote:

"David" wrote in message
...

"George" wrote in message
...
so, the thorn in my side is the so-called spare tire. It's

not big, but
is
surely ****ing me off. From your experience...what have some

found is the
best way to get rid of it? I know there is diet, cardio,

etc...but I
wonder
what has worked best for others. I can feel my ab muscles

underneath so I
know they are there Anyway, I am just curious what has

been the best
course of action for some people...what has worked best.

Thanks!

if you are at more or less your 'fighting' weight, cardio is

probably a
waste of time if you are trying to get rid of that final fat

deposit which
sits around your waist. Say for instance you weigh 180 lbs -

what I would
do is concentrate on building muscle mass - so for instance you

gain 5 lbs
of muscle in various parts of your body - as long as you stay at

180 lbs
then you must lose fat wherever it happens to be and that will

mostly be
around your spare tire as you don;t have much fat anywhere else.

So first
get down to your ideal weight - then keep building muscle mass

but do not
increase weight till you get rid of your spare tire



Exactly how do you suggest concentrating on building muscle mass,

while maintaining
the
same weight?

Geez, do you have to be so nit-picky? I've managed to change my

body
composition while keeping my weight the same. No, I didn't build

muscle
and lose fat at the same time, but my weight went up and down by no

more
than a few pounds at a time - I'd eat more for a few weeks or

months,
put on a pound or two, then eat less and lose the weight, and

gradually,
over time, lowered my bodyfat percentage without anything other than

a
very small shift in my total body weight. If you get on the scale

every
morning this isn't difficult to do and, in my book, when your weight
only varies by a pound or two, or even three or four, that's close
enough to call it maintaining the same weight, albeit not _exactly_

the
same weight.


You have?

Seems to me you posted not too long ago how you've changed neither

your weight nor your
bodyfat percentage.


That was true up until a few months ago. I have been been doing what I
just described for the last few months, with my weight moving between
about 149-150 and 154 or so. My weight was a steady 152-153 before
that. That is, of course, unless you tell me it's physically
impossible, Hoff.


what you were doing was alternating periods of slight weight gain with
slight weight loss.

This is a fundamentally different thing than 'doing it at the same time'
even if you are trying to redefine 'staying at the same weight'.

Here, it's about time I posted this (from the never to be finished book)
b/c it needs to be archived and linked to every time this ****ing issues
come up.

Lyle


****
Gaining muscle/losing fat
If there's a single question that comes up more often than any other
it's along the lines of "How can I gain muscle and lose fat?" And the
general answer is "Unless you'e a beginner or coming back off of a
layoff, you can't." I know, I've given it myself enough times.
Actually, I've previously said it was impossible but that's not entirely
true and I wish to retract every time in the past that I've said it. It
is possible in a few specific circumstances but let's look at them
individually before adressing the question itself.
Beginners have a notorious propensity for gaining reasonable amounts of
muscle while losing fat at the same time; I've seen it enough times
first hand. Actually, it turns out not to be beginners per se but
rather fat beginners. A lean individual who is starting out in training
isn't going to lose fat while they gain muscle. In someone with
relatively average bodyfat levels, a loss of 5-10 lbs of fat and gains
of 3-4 lbs of muscle over the first 8 weeks is quite common with even
the most basic routine. And, as it turns out, the bodyfat issue isn't a
trivial one. As you'll learn in upcoming chapters, a higher bodyfat
percentage makes fat mobilization easier. As well, a beginner doesn't
have a lot of muscle mass to begin with, so they find it easier to make
gains. So gains of muscle along with fat loss is not uncommon. Once
you get to a certain level of leanness and/or muscle mass, the odds of
this occurring go down at a staggering rate.
Folks returning from a layoff can get amazing results like this as
well. Muscle memory is a very real phenomenon and, empirically, it
seems like folks who were once lean (especially genetically) can get
lean again with less effort. This is actually how most of the magical
before/after photo comparisons in the magazines are done. Someone will
start in amazing shape, deliberately get into bad shape by eating like
crap and not training, and then let muscle memory get them BACK into
shape rapidly. That is, they aren't getting into shape but rather
getting BACK into shape in those photo spreads. I shouldn't have to
tell you that every before/after photo shoot involving a pro-bodybuilder
means that an absolute crapload of drugs were involved: any supplement
they are claiming to have used played no role in it.
I should mention that drugs can cause simultaneous fat loss and muscle
gain as well. In non-users, low-dose testosterone can cause a
repartitioning effect (gains in muscle with a loss of fat). Clenbuterol
has the reputation for almost magical makeovers, at least until it stops
working in 2 weeks. Growth hormone injections tends to cause profound
fat loss and a gain in lean body mass but studies show that the LBM
gained is mostly connective tissue and water, not actual muscle. Since
this book is primarily about non-drug solutions to body recomposition, I
mention this only for completeness.
So what about everybody else, can you gain muscle while losing fat at
the same time. A lot of it depends on what may seem like rather
semantic/pedantic issue.
Fundamentally, the question of "Can I gain fat and lose muscle at the
same time?" comes down to an issue of how much; that is, how much of
each are you trying to gain or lose respectively? You can also make an
issue out of the phrase 'same time' in coming to your answer.
For example, if you looked at someone alternating phases of muscle gain
and fat loss over a year, they'd have obviously gained muscle and lost
fat at the 'same time': one year. Even someone who is alternating 2-3
week periods of fat loss with 2-3 week periods of weight gain will be,
technically speaking, gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time
(i.e. over a 6 week span). But they're doing it by alternating
individual phases (fat loss OR muscle gain). As well, it's usually
possible to gain small amounts of muscle while losing small amounts of
fat at the same time. You can do this with cyclical diets for example.
I'll talk more about those later.
I also know of folks who accomplish this by using tiny caloric deficit
(i.e. 200 cal/day below maintenance) and severe micromanaging of
nutrient intake. Reports of a few pounds of muscle gained while losing
a few pounds of fat over 12-16 weeks are what you typically hear. Even
they admit that it tends to drive them completely insane and I just
can't see the point of going to that much trouble for such a minimal
overall gain. In those same 12-16 weeks, coupling an actual diet where
maximal fat loss was the goal, with an actual weight gain phase where
maximal muscle gain was the goal, would result in better results without
the psychotic need for micromanaging the diet.
But these aren't really what people are asking. When someone asks "Can
I lose muscle and gain fat at the same time?" what they generally mean
is "Can I lose 20 lbs of fat and gain 10-20 lbs of muscle in a few month
span?" Seriously, I've gotten questions where people were hoping for
those kinds of results. They usually hide it in body composition
numbers (or don't realize what they are trying to achieve), wanting to
go from 200 lbs at 20% bodyfat to 200 lbs at 10% bodyfat in 12 weeks,
which represents a loss of 20 lbs of fat and a gain of 20 lbs of muscle
over that time span. To that, the answer is 'Absolutely not, unless you
take a ****load of drugs.'
A related comment comes when folks state "I want to lose fat without
losing any weight." Well, see, here's the problem: fat has mass (and
hence weight). The only way to lose fat without losing bodyweight is to
replace every pound of fat lost with a pound of muscle in a 1:1 ratio.
Alternately, someone might want to gain muscle without increasing
weight. Again, we're faced with the basic problem that muscle has
weight, to maintain a stable weight while gaining muscle would require
fat to be lost in a 1:1 ratio. It's a lovely idea, but it's quite
unlikely to happen. Impossible? No, I'm sure someone will manage to do
it. Improbable? Yes.
To put it bluntly, if you want to lose a considerable amount of fat,
your odds of gaining even small amounts of muscle are fairly small.
Depending on your starting bodyfat percentage, the best you might
achieve is not losing any muscle (or only losing a pound or two). If
you're trying to reach super leanness, you may sacrifice considerable
muscle getting there. Someone trying to diet to 7% bodyfat is not going
to gain muscle while doing it, not without drugs. By a similar token,
if you want to gain a lot of muscle (or gain it at a reasonable rate),
the odds of losing a lot of fat are pretty minimal. The odds of losing
any fat at all are, quite honestly, fairly slim. At best you would gain
only a small amount of fat. Odds are, unless you're genetically blessed
or very lucky, you'll gain quite a bit of fat.

Copyright 2003 Lyle McDonald



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hardgainer Bodybuilding & Weightlifting FAQ Rolo&Maria Weights 30 December 29th 04 09:32 PM
Weight training without the weights Laura Sullwold Weights 9 August 25th 03 08:24 AM
Do I need weights at all?? Powerblocks maybe? Tommy Lacroix Weights 8 August 8th 03 06:58 PM
Don't lift weights while dieting. Human Bean Weights 12 July 25th 03 09:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.