ChemBB
Member
Yep. Bloodwork & vitals look good, will drop the dose if my LDL tanks or other markers point towards damaging territory.bro if I'm not mistaken, I read that you had a heart attack at 30, and are you now preparing for a race??
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yep. Bloodwork & vitals look good, will drop the dose if my LDL tanks or other markers point towards damaging territory.bro if I'm not mistaken, I read that you had a heart attack at 30, and are you now preparing for a race??
tris - 4
bicep - 2.5
chest - 4
subscap - 12
midaxillary (armpit) - 5
abdominal - 10
suprailiac - 4
thigh - 7
lower back - 13
calf - 3
| Method | %BF | Fat (lb) | LBM (lb) |
| Jackson–Pollock 7-site | 6.2 | 11.9 | 181.1 |
| Jackson–Pollock 3-site | 6.0 | 11.6 | 181.4 |
| Jackson–Pollock 4-site | 5.7 | 11.0 | 182.0 |
| Durnin–Womersley 4-site | 9.6 | 18.5 | 174.5 |
| Yuhasz 6-site | 6.8 | 13.1 | 179.9 |
| Yuhasz 6-site, NHL variant | 7.6 | 14.7 | 178.3 |
| Parrillo 9-site | 8.4 | 16.2 | 176.8 |
You can ignore me if this is nosy (and it is nosy), but what happened? 30 is very young for a heart attack.Yep. Bloodwork & vitals look good, will drop the dose if my LDL tanks or other markers point towards damaging territory.
| Site | Measurement (cm) |
| Wrists | 18.5 |
| L Bicep | 41.0 |
| R Bicep | 42.0 |
| Chest | 118.0 |
| Waist | 87.0 |
| L Quad | 65.0 |
| R Quad | 60.0 |
| L Calf | 41.0 |
| R Calf | 39.0 |
| Ankles | 24.0 |
| Region | BMC (g) | Fat Mass (g) | Lean Mass (g) | Lean + BMC (g) | Total Mass (g) | % Fat |
| L Arm | 236.68 | 562.6 | 5878.3 | 6115.0 | 6677.5 | 8.4% |
| R Arm | 261.13 | 608.7 | 5902.5 | 6163.6 | 6772.4 | 9.0% |
| Trunk | 869.31 | 3768.7 | 38822.0 | 39691.3 | 43459.9 | 8.7% |
| L Leg | 550.01 | 1276.5 | 12523.4 | 13073.5 | 14350.0 | 8.9% |
| R Leg | 563.00 | 1053.5 | 11447.7 | 12010.7 | 13064.2 | 8.1% |
| Subtotal | 2480.13 | 7270.0 | 74573.9 | 77054.0 | 84324.1 | 8.6% |
| Head | 580.71 | 1100.6 | 3493.6 | 4074.3 | 5174.9 | 21.3% |
| Total | 3060.84 | 8370.6 | 78067.5 | 81128.3 | 89499.0 | 9.4% |
| Measure | Result | YN Percentile | AM Percentile |
| Total Body % Fat | 9.35% | 2 | 2 |
| Fat Mass/Height² (kg/m²) | 2.98 | 12 | 9 |
| Android/Gynoid Ratio | 1.21 | - | - |
| % Fat Trunk/% Fat Legs | 1.02 | 72 | 64 |
| Trunk/Limb Fat Mass Ratio | 1.08 | 67 | 57 |
| Lean/Height² (kg/m²) | 27.8 | 99 | 99 |
| Appen. Lean/Height² (kg/m²) | 12.7 | 98 | 98 |
| Est. VAT Mass (g) | 291 g | - | - |
| Est. VAT Volume (cm³) | 314 cm³ | - | - |
| Est. VAT Area (cm²) | 60.3 cm² | - | - |
| Site | Measurement (mm) |
| Triceps | 3.5/4 |
| Bicep | 2.5 |
| Chest | 4 |
| Subscapular | 12 |
| Midaxillary (armpit) | 5 |
| Abdominal | 10 |
| Suprailiac | 3.5/4 |
| Thigh | 7 |
| Lower back | 13 |
| Calf | 3 |
| Method | %BF | Fat (lb) | LBM (lb) |
| Jackson–Pollock 7-site | 6.2 | 11.9 | 181.1 |
| Jackson–Pollock 3-site | 6.0 | 11.6 | 181.4 |
| Jackson–Pollock 4-site | 5.7 | 11.0 | 182.0 |
| Durnin–Womersley 4-site | 9.6 | 18.5 | 174.5 |
| Yuhasz 6-site | 6.8 | 13.1 | 179.9 |
| Yuhasz 6-site, NHL variant | 7.6 | 14.7 | 178.3 |
| Parrillo 9-site | 8.4 | 16.2 | 176.8 |
You can ignore me if this is nosy (and it is nosy), but what happened? 30 is very young for a heart attack.
How are things with your heart different now?
Like I said, feel free to ignore, but that post caught my attention. You do not often see a guy who survived a heart attack at a young age competing in body building.
- Impression: Inferior ST elevation microinfarction with culprit lesion of second obtuse marginal...
Interesting, would love to see a follow up before the show, youre going to be crazy lean in 6 months@malfeasance @Slowww
Skinfold calipers came in, some more data points if anyone is curious.
Device is: "Sequoia Trimcal 4000"
I make no guarantees I did a proper job of this:
Code:tris - 4 bicep - 2.5 chest - 4 subscap - 12 midaxillary (armpit) - 5 abdominal - 10 suprailiac - 4 thigh - 7 lower back - 13 calf - 3
Method %BF Fat (lb) LBM (lb) Jackson–Pollock 7-site 6.2 11.9 181.1 Jackson–Pollock 3-site 6.0 11.6 181.4 Jackson–Pollock 4-site 5.7 11.0 182.0 Durnin–Womersley 4-site 9.6 18.5 174.5 Yuhasz 6-site 6.8 13.1 179.9 Yuhasz 6-site, NHL variant 7.6 14.7 178.3 Parrillo 9-site 8.4 16.2 176.8
for the weight cap, a running gag we got at my local gym is telling new competitors they could be putting helium balloons into their bum for weigh ins to push the weight down ever so slightly. Sounds stupid, is definitely cheating, but might work.Thanks lads, here's to hoping it goes well.
You guys think I can make the 177lb weight limit?
I was ~182ish in my PFP.
I want to take an unusual approach to the competition -- instead of trying to manipulate body/water weight last-minute before the show, I want to try to get stage weight ~2 weeks out and keep it stable + full-looking.
Without having any experience trying to use diuretics or hardcore prep protocols, feels like I'd either come in flat or would rebound over my weight cap and be barred from competing
Oh, wow, this was just last month. I had no idea you were talking about something so recent.I have an inferior STEMI, posted about it here, along with all my lab/surgery reports:
Well, it finally happened to me.
Near end of my workout today I start feeling chest tightness & pain, hard to breathe.
Go to emergency room, get told I'm having a heart attack (STEMi).
"A 99% subtotal blockage was found in the second obtuse marginal (OM2) branch of left circumflex (LCx) artery."
Likely from vulnerable plaque rupturing during the workout and the thrombosis that follows narrowing the artery.
Single-vessel disease, no other obstructive disease discovered during angiogram.
Code:- Impression: Inferior ST elevation microinfarction with culprit lesion of second obtuse marginal...
- ChemBB
- Replies: 273
- Forum: Steroid Forum
tl;dr = Cardio thinks I had a blood clot, since the rest of my arteries are clear.
He said it's unusual that you'd have plaque buildup in only one place, so when they did my cath and found arteries clear, it appeared to be an isolated event.
Way better lighting than the gym, and I do not mean that stupid overhead lighting that everybody uses to post pics here, hoping it will show more contrast and shading under the muscles, but just good light so you can see.
You seem to be quite knowledge in this area, may I ask if it would be better for get a dexa scan when I'm depleted at the end of a cut or after a refeed and reverse diet to when I am fully topped up on glycogen?I'll stop now. The bottom line is that the NHANES used in ChemBB's results is probably the most accurate way we have to measure body fat.
At the end of the day, what is really going to matter is how he looks on stage, not what the Dexa says. Are there striations? Is there fat between the muscle and skin? Is that Christmas Tree in the lower back present?
Since he is competing in Classic, striated glutes will not be visible, but it would not hurt to get as lean as possible prior to stepping on stage.
By looking at he photos only, he will make the weight cutoff, but I encourage him to go by photos in all of the poses and his coach's feedback and guidance, not so much by the scale weight and cutoff.
I don’t think posing room looks best, a good posing room should mimic the stage lighting and have high exposure/ really show everything evenly + be consistent. It is good if you look good, and if you look like shit you will look more shit. Check ins deep in off season with stage lights look like a pile of lard and it’s not cheating anything, but look really crazy when you get 6-0 weeks out because you look sickSir no need to be mean, the lighting you say is from posing rooms which serve a purpose, to pose. It's where you look the best and yes it's a cheat code, everybody knows it. No need to pose in broad daylight in front of a black curtain unless my coach (if i had) demand this to assess my progress. Consistency of the place and lighting you take photos is more important IMO.
I don’t think posing room looks best, a good posing room should mimic the stage lighting and have high exposure/ really show everything evenly + be consistent. It is good if you look good, and if you look like shit you will look more shit. Check ins deep in off season with stage lights look like a pile of lard and it’s not cheating anything, but look really crazy when you get 6-0 weeks out because you look sick
Like malfeasance said, Down lit, dramatic, low light with high contrast is the one which is a cheat code imo that shouldn’t be for progress pics. Some posing rooms are like this sure, but I don’t think any coaches worth their salt would accept them for check ins lol .
If you do consistent lighting at home or decent posing room, it’s the same tool.
I would take pictures in a posing room if my gym had one, unfortunately it just has normal overhead lights =(It's where you look the best and yes it's a cheat code
Yeah for sure, I would agree with thisSo even if I'm a bit “fuller” or heavier from water, that’s what I actually walk around with normally and probably the most accurate and reproducible condition for a future DEXA scans and comparisons.
I would take pictures in a posing room if my gym had one, unfortunately it just has normal overhead lights =(
Who doesn't want to take pics where they look the biggest/leanest?
I tried to buy a whole lighting + curtain setup for my house -- but my wife threw a fit and said it would take too much space, haha.
Can you guys stop censoring the dick in your pictures? It's really hard to bust a nut on this forum.Hotel lighting had my legs looking a bit better than gym lighting I think, tried to snap a few pics
View attachment 355355
