BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > My products > Rapid Fat Loss Handbook
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Unread 02-17-2017, 02:02 AM
Determinism Determinism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPecsPeter View Post
It's contest shredded for goodness sake. Your notion of "13-14%" is no more accurate than another person's idea of "11-12%". You're being ridiculous beyond words.

A DEXA scan called a certain condition 11-12. What is your testing method/science for calling it 13-14%? You still haven't answered that question. What is the science behind what you've said? Quote sources, because you're challenging an established method
It's sad to see how you're blindly focusing on things that are beyond what was intended. Read the thread again. Read the list again. You're smart, you'll figure it out.

About the 13-14%, it's called admitting she's shredded and very close to what the DEXA scan says. I never claimed that she's definitely NOT 11.5% (which I still think she isn't). The point is that when someone says a number that is highly unlikely, it probably is. Especially if she's natural. Unbelievable how you cannot get that.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Unread 02-17-2017, 02:10 AM
BigPecsPeter BigPecsPeter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,067
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
It's sad to see how you're blindly focusing on things that are beyond what was intended. Read the thread again. Read the list again. You're smart, you'll figure it out.

About the 13-14%, it's called admitting she's shredded and very close to what the DEXA scan says. I never claimed that she's definitely NOT 11.5% (which I still think she isn't). The point is that when someone says a number that is highly unlikely, it probably is. Especially if she's natural. Unbelievable how you cannot get that.
Your

Basis

For

Saying

It's

Highly

Unlikely

(Let's break it up into individual words. Maybe you'll answer my question then)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Unread 02-17-2017, 02:34 AM
lisacal lisacal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
Again, that's not where it's about. Read the rest of the thread.



That's a very good condition, no doubt. I'd say 13-14%. Are you natural or enhanced?
Thank you and I'm natural (and old haha)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Unread 02-17-2017, 03:57 AM
lisacal lisacal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPecsPeter View Post
Your

Basis

For

Saying

It's

Highly

Unlikely

(Let's break it up into individual words. Maybe you'll answer my question then)
Yes, I'm interested too
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Unread 02-17-2017, 04:54 AM
Determinism Determinism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPecsPeter View Post
Your

Basis

For

Saying

It's

Highly

Unlikely

(Let's break it up into individual words. Maybe you'll answer my question then)
>

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
You're smart, you'll figure it out.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Unread 02-17-2017, 08:27 AM
squat squat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 644
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
It's sad to see how you're blindly focusing on things that are beyond what was intended. Read the thread again. Read the list again. You're smart, you'll figure it out.

About the 13-14%, it's called admitting she's shredded and very close to what the DEXA scan says. I never claimed that she's definitely NOT 11.5% (which I still think she isn't). The point is that when someone says a number that is highly unlikely, it probably is. Especially if she's natural. Unbelievable how you cannot get that.
Actually, you did make this claim. Why are you lying? By implying she'd be dead, that's exactly what you said. You also said women will never reach a true 11.5%bf.

You have managed to say nothing and completely undermine your credibility at the same time (as if you had any, in the first place).


What's your point in this thread, genius? Could you define it now, please?

When something is unlikely, it's probably unlikely? Unbelievable!

Last edited by squat : 02-17-2017 at 08:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Unread 02-17-2017, 11:48 AM
Determinism Determinism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squat View Post
Actually, you did make this claim. Why are you lying? By implying she'd be dead, that's exactly what you said.
Good grief, read the thread again. You see exactly what I intended. Drop the fake act.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Unread 02-17-2017, 12:56 PM
BigPecsPeter BigPecsPeter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,067
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
Good grief, read the thread again. You see exactly what I intended. Drop the fake act.
Goodness me, you're STILL here?!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Unread 02-17-2017, 01:45 PM
squat squat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 644
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Determinism View Post
Good grief, read the thread again. You see exactly what I intended. Drop the fake act.
Please read the thread again, and again, til you realize what you have said.


If you don't want to take responsibility for the things you say, stop talking.


The conveyance is on you.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Unread 07-19-2017, 09:27 AM
jimike jimike is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tellurium View Post
The book calls for 1-1.25, 1.25-1.5 and 1.5-2.0 g/lb (LBM) for rest, aerobic and weight training days respectively.

You have approximately 125lbs of LBM therefore:

Rest: 125-155g
Aerobic:155-187g
Weight training:187-250g

Personally I tend to use the upper limit for aerobic days and lower for weight training so that I consume the same amount each day.

Are these statements accurate? I'd always took the book to mean that is the individual was a CAT1 and weight training then that person would do 2g protein per day EVERY DAY (whether training or not).
Or if their mode of exercise was primarily aerobic it'd be 1.25-1.5g per day every day.

The book never mentioned cycling if I recall and it would be a pretty big change from what I've always taken RFL to be. Then again mine is a spiral-bound hard copy from 2008 to 2010 (or thereabouts) so if there was any updates I've missed them.

Personally I hope this way is the 'new' or at least sanctioned way. I'm about to start RFL again and as a heavy CAT 1 male I really wasn't looking forward to try to eat (never mind afford) 350g of protein per day lol.

Last edited by jimike : 07-19-2017 at 09:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.