zane vs arnold

[ghettostudmuffin]

This is hilarious. A 19 year old schmuck talking shit about Frank Zane.

Thanks for the comic relief.

 

[muscleup]

This is hilarious. A 19 year old schmuck talking shit about Frank Zane.

Thanks for the comic relief.

 

[chazk]

You are very wrong. I am about 17%, so I have exactly 34 pounds of fat on me, if I lost 20lbs I would be 6%, where Zane is. That would make me 180pounds. I am also shorter so it would look very close. He was like 35? Juiced? I'm 19, natty? For Olympia, NOT VERY GOOD.

your 198lbs at 17% your LBM is 164lbs
frank at 198 in 1982 lets say 6% bf is 184lbs (from your pic)

onstage you would be 173lbs at 6% bf if you lose no muscle
while frank was 198lbs at 6% bf
chances are you would come in closer to 168-170lbs 6% after the muscle lose from deiting



so no your arms are not as big as zanes they are covered in fat and water
your 17 inch guns will become 15 inch guns once you drop all that fat trying to get down to 6%

some one with comp knowledge correct me if i'm wrong.
but young guns should weigh in around 168lbs at 6%

 

[youngguns]

your 198lbs at 17% your LBM is 164lbs
frank at 198 in 1982 lets say 6% bf is 184lbs (from your pic)

onstage you would be 173lbs at 6% bf if you lose no muscle
while frank was 198lbs at 6% bf
chances are you would come in closer to 168-170lbs 6% after the muscle lose from deiting



so no your arms are not as big as zanes they are covered in fat and water
your 17 inch guns will become 15 inch guns once you drop all that fat trying to get down to 6%

some one with comp knowledge correct me if i'm wrong.
but young guns should weigh in around 168lbs at 6%

I'm over 200 actually. and no you did the math wrong. cant you do simple math? losing 12 pounds of muscle with 20 of fat? HAHAHHAHAA
180!

 

[chazk]

I'm over 200 actually. and no you did the math wrong. cant you do simple math? losing 12 pounds of muscle with 20 of fat? HAHAHHAHAA
180!

as you lose weight your body fat changes vs the percent of lean muscle
you take your\total 200lbs 17% bf minus 34 lbs of fat = 166lbs lmb with not fat
then you add back the fat percent to get the new fat % at the lower body weight.
at 176lbs you are 6% bf then add muscle loss during dieting youll wont break over a buck 70
unless your lying and your not 200lbs at 17%bf but thats how it works if your 200 at 17%
Your not seeing as your total weight drops your no longer 200lbs and when you lose 25lbs down to your new body mass is 175 and you take the fat read from their your new total mass is lower your going to measure bf % from 175lb not 200lbs the body is almost 1/8 lighter and you have to adjust to make up for the 1/8 th percent lighter your body is.
thats where your getting confused young guns..

 

[youngguns]

as you lose weight your body fat changes vs the percent of lean muscle
you take your\total 200lbs 17% bf minus 34 lbs of fat = 166lbs lmb with not fat
then you add back the fat percent to get the new fat % at the lower body weight.
at 176lbs you are 6% bf then add muscle loss during dieting youll wont break over a buck 70
unless your lying and your not 200lbs at 17%bf but thats how it works if your 200 at 17%
Your not seeing as your total weight drops your no longer 200lbs and when you lose 25lbs down to your new body mass is 175 and you take the fat read from their your new total mass is lower your going to measure bf % from 175lb not 200lbs the body is almost 1/8 lighter and you have to adjust to make up for the 1/8 th percent lighter your body is.
thats where your getting confused young guns..

 

[chazk]

make it simple
your 200lbs 17% fat (34 pounds of fat)... lbm = 166lbs<<important
at 176lbs 6% bf(10lbs of fat) ..lmb =166lbs<<important
your muscle is unchanged you forgot to factor the 25% drop in overall weight for the other 4lbs bringing you down from 180 to 176lb 6%
then factor in muscle lost during deiting and things will get nasty.

but to be real with you for being all natural thats really no a bad thing or nothing to be ashamed of.just shows you how much you need to gain and lose to like zane..for your age if you understand now you know what your up against and will find it eazier to handle the challenges before you

 

[Mac173]

I dunno YG - ZAne looks pretty diced in some pics I have seen - but no one really knows and really who cares - they aren;t testing BF on stage, just apperance.

IMO Zane had the look. And for that matter Serge had the best look - to this day I would rather look like Serge that almost anyone.

Victor Martinez is who I think has the most to offer now...

I agree. Serge's symmetry and proportions are incredible. Perfect IMO.
Zane had a great build too, but even ripped at 180 compared to someone that towers over you and is 55lbs heavier, probably isn't gonna cut it.
Not taking anything from Zane though, because I loved his physice.

 

[muscleup]

Zane has a beautiful physique by anyones standards.

 

[RottenWillow]

that not the best of zane... henery looks around 4%

I cant agree. I feel pretty sure that's a shot of Frank taken between '82 and '83. Despite no longer winning any O's at that point, he was in absolute peak condition. All the Zane strengths were still there, plus even thinner skin and better overall conditioning.